Ryzen 3000 boost clock controversy - der8auer publishes his survey results, not a good look for AMD

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,199

Screenshot_20190901-135603~01.jpg

95% of 3900X CPUs do not achieve their advertised single core boost frequency, other SKUs do not fare much better.

der8auer also addressed Hardware Unboxed' motherboard dependency boost theory but the results show it not to be an easy solution for AMD's deceptive marketing.

It seems AMD just cannot not mess up a launch even when they have a good product.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
13,729
It looks like the majority can hit 4.5 ghz, which is indistinguishable from 4.6 ghz in everyday use; 4.6/4.5 = TWO PERCENT. That's like complaining about 62 vs 60 fps.

Once again, this ia a big Nothingburger. The performance hit from Bulldozer's "cores" was more significant (20% below that of traditional CPUs in multi core integer workloads, and up to 50% lower in FPU-heavy code), but you'll still hear people here whining about it being a pointless lawsuit.

The reviews show the 3900x to still beat the 9900k in almost every benchmark, so it's not hurting anything noticeable. For perfectionists here, you will see the process improve and clocks get up to 4.6ghz on all parts in a few more months.
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,489
I think my 3700x is still great value, but it also only hits 4375 boost.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,489
It looks like the majority can hit 4.5 ghz, which is indistinguishable from 4.6 ghz in everyday use; 4.6/4.5 = TWO PERCENT. That's like complaining about 62 vs 60 fps.

Once again, this ia a big Nothingburger. The performance hit from Bulldozer's "cores" was more significant (20% below that of traditional CPUs in multi core integer workloads, and up to 50% lower in FPU-heavy code), but you'll still hear people here whining about it being a pointless lawsuit.

The reviews show the 3900x to still beat the 9900k in almost every benchmark, so it's not hurting anything noticeable. For perfectionists here, you will see the process improve and clocks get up to 4.6ghz on all parts in a few more months.
No, it's not nothing, it's false advertising. And "can hit" is not the same as sustaining it, these results show what was the max boost even for half a second, not the average boost during the entire test. And if a manufacturer tells me this cpu boosts to 4600 single core, I'll not accept 4500 for a few seconds within a 10 minute benchmark as fulfilling that promise.It is irrelevant if they oversold it by 2% or 20% it's still false advertising if it doesn't do what it is supposed to do. The bulldozer lawsuit has nothing to with this as it is an entirely different thing. It was bullshit, because they weren't saying things that weren't true technically. But 95% of your product not achieving the advertised speed at all is not nothing.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
851
It would be a nothing if the box for my 3700x said 4275mhz because that's what I get (brand new $270 aurous pro mb). Its a fast CPU, 4400mhz is barely any better.. but my box is staring me in the face and lying, period. My, 4790k before this said 4.4ghz boost and what a shock, hit it with load and bang... 4400mhz exact....

I'm not going to defend AMD here, they had to have done some kind of testing with the consumer bios and decided either A) print the wrong numbers on the box and hopefully fix it later or B) completely fluff boost clocks and get away with it legally because users may hit that clock for 0.00001 seconds during a full blue moon. I'm sure they consulted with the lawyers and went with B.
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
279
It's a stupid move from AMD, considering that the processors still are awesome at the current speeds. So why?
 

Riccochet

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
24,234
It would be a nothing if the box for my 3700x said 4275mhz because that's what I get (brand new $270 aurous pro mb). Its a fast CPU, 4400mhz is barely any better.. but my box is staring me in the face and lying, period. My, 4790k before this said 4.4ghz boost and what a shock, hit it with load and bang... 4400mhz exact....

I'm not going to defend AMD here, they had to have done some kind of testing with the consumer bios and decided either A) print the wrong numbers on the box and hopefully fix it later or B) completely fluff boost clocks and get away with it legally because users may hit that clock for 0.00001 seconds during a full blue moon. I'm sure they consulted with the lawyers and went with B.

Agreed. My 3700X has never seen above 4275.
 

dragonstongue

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
3,162
agreed, they and EVERYONE ELSE who uses this boost frequency, turbo core or whatever fancy arse name they want to dream up, need to think it through far more logically before they put on the shelf, at least so far as in not to be deceptive in their practises...*huff hufff, catch breath*


-----------------
-----

A certain minimum threshold IF set to Spec Default/Auto (which should be ofc 100% certified before RTM..not damn months later)

When comes to the actual boost crud, should be +/=/- % (I would be ok with 5%) but it HAS TO BE written and adhered to, otherwise, what we buying?

so far my 3600 is doing quite well, many tests by me cpu-z alone I am getting above 3600x base and few times (depend on how I set) I was blowing into top boards for multi-core just below the BIG BOYS (3900 // 9900 etc

but, I agree with others, hitting, sustaining, majority of time never @ what is printed on the box, not cool, not cool AT ALL ..


---------------
----

Also not cool nor not good enough to "we are working on it and we will have a solution shortly for our SKU that are having issues with frequency modulation (whatever cocamany excuse they dream up once again)

I am very happy with mine, very happy indeed, w/e tiny little not so smooth spike am sure will be polished up when they are....

Untill then, I will side with those who also have similar contention of "Hey you have listed as X, but it rare ever is there, the hell is up with that?"

I call that breach of contract, and they should have to pay back X to the legal purchaser of them products to the LOCALE the purchase was made (none of this crap of only USA when a massive amount of them sales made somewhere else)

-------------------

X below speed should be, X $$$$$$ paid back, simple math can truly be applied..

much like buy a burger from favorit go to place, no one would appreciate that every X burger was anything BUT the meat they should have been given, false advertise, is false advertise, point set match
 

blackmomba

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
430
User benchmarks, gpu boss, passmark all garbage according to the community. User submissions can't be trusted they said

I bet they can be trusted more than one man's survey results :LOL:

A little consistency please; either we care about aggregated user results or we don't

I trust HWU assessment of the situation a lot more than this where "troll" results were removed along with whatever else he decided didn't fit the narrative
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,231
meh my 3600 sits permanently at 4200mhz all core boost so i can't really complain.

It would be a nothing if the box for my 3700x said 4275mhz because that's what I get (brand new $270 aurous pro mb). Its a fast CPU, 4400mhz is barely any better.. but my box is staring me in the face and lying, period. My, 4790k before this said 4.4ghz boost and what a shock, hit it with load and bang... 4400mhz exact....

I'm not going to defend AMD here, they had to have done some kind of testing with the consumer bios and decided either A) print the wrong numbers on the box and hopefully fix it later or B) completely fluff boost clocks and get away with it legally because users may hit that clock for 0.00001 seconds during a full blue moon. I'm sure they consulted with the lawyers and went with B.

it's also possible that when they did their initial testing that the cpu's they used were hitting those clocks. ultimately it's nothing different from psu manufactures claiming for example a platinum rating but barely hitting gold in real use scenario's because 80+ cert allows them to cherry pick psu's instead of using retail products and test in an unrealistic ambient temp. we could go on for days listing out all the bullshit companies falsely advertise but whats the point.
 

Mav451

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
4,672
I'm a bit curious how the 3950x release will be handled then, if the 3900x was so poorly binned vs its advertised boost clock. Hell - didn't we even have a thread about that - current 3900x users who were going to consider the 3950x for better clocks? And if I'm recalling correctly Buildzoid said he was skipping the 12-core in favor of the 16-core. Looks like he made the right call lmao - *assuming* the 3950x actually hits 4.7Ghz as advertised.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
851
meh my 3600 sits permanently at 4200mhz all core boost so i can't really complain.



it's also possible that when they did their initial testing that the cpu's they used were hitting those clocks. ultimately it's nothing different from psu manufactures claiming for example a platinum rating but barely hitting gold in real use scenario's because 80+ cert allows them to cherry pick psu's instead of using retail products and test in an unrealistic ambient temp. we could go on for days listing out all the bullshit companies falsely advertise but whats the point.

For sure, fluffing specs is nothing new in the tech world. Just not something I was expecting from a CPU. I went in expecting to see something and didn't.

This is setting new precedence.
We have a new clock stretching feature that allows the cpu to report one frequency while actually running slower by altering the tick rate (according to my readings), boost clocks not hitting where they should, single ccx cpus (3800x and below) having 1/2 the memory write speed of a 2700x (also not a real world issue, but its a gimp they honestly claim is a power saving feature when its really just a side effect of the design).. we have a great CPU just way overpromised.

Let's not forget the pbo video telling us to imagine 4700mhz on a 3900x, the reason i bought a high end x570 board rather than a cheap x470 aorus elite. I know that wasn't guaranteed, but 0 people have seen those frequencies so why say it...

I'm not much of a pitchfork guy, but in the future I'll do my due diligence before buying. If intel launched the 9900ks 5ghz and it peaked at 4850mhz, it would be world war 3 imo.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,060
I would be happy with 3.5, if the chip where here still no stock of the 3900x’s in Canada.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
851
I would be happy with 3.5, if the chip where here still no stock of the 3900x’s in Canada.

Maybe you'll get lucky and by the time they are in stock, it's a new stepping that's capable of running faster than the rest of ours.

C3 vs C2 Phenom II anybody? :p
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,199
I trust HWU assessment of the situation a lot more than this where "troll" results were removed along with whatever else he decided didn't fit the narrative
We have to keep in mind their assessment is based on one CPU and MBO each, IIRC, so too limited to draw conclusions.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,927
So 5% of consumers don't know what the fuck they are doing with their fans. Sounds right.
In fact sounds wrong to me... I have no doubt the % is more likely double or triple that. So AMD imo some recognition still for having 95% hit the advertised boost. I have no doubt 10-20% of all installed 3000s fans are in boxes with inadequate case ventilation. (not to mention the morons that didn't install their heat sinks properly... I am sure plenty of us here have stories of helping out friends or clients that have cpu fans not properly installed)

My 3600x hits its advertised boost no issue on the stock cooler with 2 proper case fans and a clean install. Perhaps I just got lucky but I doubt it. AMD seems to know exactly what each chip is going to do. Think I'm going to grab a decent AIO and a new case in the next week or so anyway just to drop noise levels. Not that the stock fan is that bad but it is louder then I like.

With ANY Cpu there are always the folks that just don't install them properly. It's not hard to find a ton of evidence of 9900s blue screening ect... that are clearly heat issues related to shit installs. Not Intel or AMDs fault if people don't properly apply thermal compound or do stupid things like turn top exhust fans in intake position. (had a client a few years ago that put 2 120mm fans in the top of his caes blowing directly DOWN onto his CPU. lol people do all manner of dumb things then blame the hardware lol)
 
Last edited:

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
20,624
I see both sides of this. 1

MHz isn't that much, considering it's a deviation between 4.5 to 4.6 GHz.

On the other hand, they were specifically spec'd to achieve boost clocks that they are not, so that puts it into potential judicial action territory.
 

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
No, it's not nothing, it's false advertising. And "can hit" is not the same as sustaining it, these results show what was the max boost even for half a second, not the average boost during the entire test. And if a manufacturer tells me this cpu boosts to 4600 single core, I'll not accept 4500 for a few seconds within a 10 minute benchmark as fulfilling that promise.It is irrelevant if they oversold it by 2% or 20% it's still false advertising if it doesn't do what it is supposed to do. The bulldozer lawsuit has nothing to with this as it is an entirely different thing. It was bullshit, because they weren't saying things that weren't true technically. But 95% of your product not achieving the advertised speed at all is not nothing.
Who ever said it was sustained? I'm not saying your wrong I just don't remember that ever.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,760
Motherboard makes more of a difference then the chip itself. But as long as your chip is performing similar to reviews then your getting the same performance anyway.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,262
This is a big reason why I went with a 9900KF over a 3900k. I don’t really need the extra cores and the 9900KF regularly has minimums 20% higher than the AMD counterpart.

If the 3900x clocked to 4.6 as advertised and I could get anothet 0.2 out of it with custom cooling it may have been a different story. It’d be my luck to have the chip that tops out at 4.1Ghz.
 

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
351
How many of you who are not hitting the advertised boost clock are running your memory faster than the default supported speed, which I believe is 2933Mhz for zen2? When you start increasing the speed of the ram beyond the default supported speed on Ryzen, boost clocks suffer. Happens on Zen+ as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

MMitch

Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
807
How many of you who are not hitting the advertised boost clock are running your memory faster than the default supported speed, which I believe is 2933Mhz for zen2? When you start increasing the speed of the ram beyond the default supported speed on Ryzen, boost clocks suffer. Happens on Zen+ as well.

Interesting, was this discussed in the video ? I skimmed fast. At that point what would have the better returns on perf, high boost clock (I take it's only single core turbo?) or higher RAM speed (Given probably loosen timings)?
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,489
Who ever said it was sustained? I'm not saying your wrong I just don't remember that ever.
i'm saying if the 4500 was sustained even that wouldn't be acceptable, if the cpu never hit the advertised 4600 frequency, but even the 4500 is just peak and not sustained.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,489
How many of you who are not hitting the advertised boost clock are running your memory faster than the default supported speed, which I believe is 2933Mhz for zen2? When you start increasing the speed of the ram beyond the default supported speed on Ryzen, boost clocks suffer. Happens on Zen+ as well.
I have 2666 RAM and I still wouldn't get 4400 on my 3700x. It barely scratches 4300.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,199
How many of you who are not hitting the advertised boost clock are running your memory faster than the default supported speed, which I believe is 2933Mhz for zen2? When you start increasing the speed of the ram beyond the default supported speed on Ryzen, boost clocks suffer. Happens on Zen+ as well.
3200 stock, but higher recommended by AMD themselves:

TravisK_DonW-Next_Horizon_Gaming-Ryzen_Deep_Dive_06092019-page-017.jpg
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,489
So 5% of consumers don't know what the fuck they are doing with their fans. Sounds right.
In fact sounds wrong to me... I have no doubt the % is more likely double or triple that. So AMD imo some recognition still for having 95% hit the advertised boost. I have no doubt 10-20% of all installed 3000s fans are in boxes with inadequate case ventilation. (not to mention the morons that didn't install their heat sinks properly... I am sure plenty of us here have stories of helping out friends or clients that have cpu fans not properly installed)

My 3600x hits its advertised boost no issue on the stock cooler with 2 proper case fans and a clean install. Perhaps I just got lucky but I doubt it. AMD seems to know exactly what each chip is going to do. Think I'm going to grab a decent AIO and a new case in the next week or so anyway just to drop noise levels. Not that the stock fan is that bad but it is louder then I like.

With ANY Cpu there are always the folks that just don't install them properly. It's not hard to find a ton of evidence of 9900s blue screening ect... that are clearly heat issues related to shit installs. Not Intel or AMDs fault if people don't properly apply thermal compound or do stupid things like turn top exhust fans in intake position. (had a client a few years ago that put 2 120mm fans in the top of his caes blowing directly DOWN onto his CPU. lol people do all manner of dumb things then blame the hardware lol)
You have that completely backwards. 95% of 3900X CPUs never hit the advertised 4600 boost, only 5% did.
 

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
351
Interesting, was this discussed in the video ? I skimmed fast. At that point what would have the better returns on perf, high boost clock (I take it's only single core turbo?) or higher RAM speed (Given probably loosen timings)?
No, it wasn't in the video. Higher ram speeds gives you better performance vs higher clock speeds,and yes, I am talking about single core boost.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,101
Opinion junk. So what.

Dudes (der8) not an authority on anything.

I can come to my own conclusions. 4550mhz is hitting advertised speeds. My chip does it all day long. My bus speed is 99mhz and 99mhzx46 multiplier is 4550mhz and my chip is only being held back by my boards timing crystal.

Fud fud fud
 
Last edited:

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
It looks like the majority can hit 4.5 ghz, which is indistinguishable from 4.6 ghz in everyday use; 4.6/4.5 = TWO PERCENT. That's like complaining about 62 vs 60 fps.

Once again, this ia a big Nothingburger. The performance hit from Bulldozer's "cores" was more significant (20% below that of traditional CPUs in multi core integer workloads, and up to 50% lower in FPU-heavy code), but you'll still hear people here whining about it being a pointless lawsuit.

That's a question you need to be asking AMD, not customers - why knowingly lie just for an extra "TWO PERCENT"?
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
Opinion junk. So what.

Dudes not an authority on anything.

I can come to my own conclusions. 4550mhz is hitting advertised speeds. My chip does it all day long. My bus speed is 99mhz and 99mhzx46 multiplier is 4550mhz and my chip is I ly being held back by my boards timing crystal.

Fud fud fud

His results are based on over 2000 results sent in, with screenshots and free-form text fields - he put a lot of work into this analysis.

But "my chip does it, so its FUD". Very meaningful counteranalysis, nicely done.
 
Last edited:

legcramp

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
11,103
It looks like the majority can hit 4.5 ghz, which is indistinguishable from 4.6 ghz in everyday use; 4.6/4.5 = TWO PERCENT. That's like complaining about 62 vs 60 fps.

Once again, this ia a big Nothingburger. The performance hit from Bulldozer's "cores" was more significant (20% below that of traditional CPUs in multi core integer workloads, and up to 50% lower in FPU-heavy code), but you'll still hear people here whining about it being a pointless lawsuit.

The reviews show the 3900x to still beat the 9900k in almost every benchmark, so it's not hurting anything noticeable. For perfectionists here, you will see the process improve and clocks get up to 4.6ghz on all parts in a few more months.

That's like complaining about 4gb vram vs 3.5gb vram.


Guys, it's not Intel or nVidia, it's okay.
 

MMitch

Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
807
3700X Spec pulled from AMD.COM clearly states Max Boost Clock 4.4GHz so doesn't guarantee it. Why is everyone thinking otherwise ? 2700X says max boost 4.3GHz and I don't recall people going nuts from not getting it... mine does 4.2GHz on all core with 16GB 3200MHz. I prefer that than 1 core at 4.3GHz.
I tried to find a user guide which explains the "Max" part in Max boost clock but I couldn't find any from a 2minutes google fu.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,687
So ~75MHz less than max boost clock on median?
His results are based on over 2000 results sent in, with screenshots and free-form text fields - he put a lot of work into this analysis.

But "my chip does it, so its FUD". Very meaningful counteranalysis, nicely done.
He sweeps the massive difference in motherboards under the table.

It's been shown clearly here that one chip will boost vastly different in multiple motherboards.
We are within 25-50Mhz of rated 'max boost' in most cases on the best motherboards if not at 4.6. That speed drops on other motherboards, using the same chip.

jesusknows all bauer is really clickwhoring by ignoring that part and saying his results don't support it when multiple peoples results do and they disagree directly with the entire context of his video.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,687
3700X Spec pulled from AMD.COM clearly states Max Boost Clock 4.4GHz so doesn't guarantee it. Why is everyone thinking otherwise ? 2700X says max boost 4.3GHz and I don't recall people going nuts from not getting it... mine does 4.2GHz on all core with 16GB 3200MHz. I prefer that than 1 core at 4.3GHz.
I tried to find a user guide which explains the "Max" part in Max boost clock but I couldn't find any from a 2minutes google fu.

Thank you. It's like people have forgotten how to read. This won't even make it to a lawsuit with 'max boost' terminology used.
 
Top