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
5,197
Still same difference since performance is what actually matters at the end of the day. Or you would rather have a Nerburst?

I'm one to buy the product, not the story. Marketing says X but I don't really care about the label. I care about the performance and value. What actual performance will I get in the applications I will use, and how much do I have to pay for that performance.

It's a moot point for me anyway, as the soonest I'll be able to afford anything new is next year's tax returns, if even then.

At the end of the day are they really missing out on performance? Do the people crying even own these $500 chips? My guess is no on both parts. This is off topic but I hate the culture of people complaining about shit on behalf of others.

I agree with you. The question is, why doesn't AMD?
 

Riccochet

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
24,223
At the end of the day are they really missing out on performance? Do the people crying even own these $500 chips? My guess is no on both parts. This is off topic but I hate the culture of people complaining about shit on behalf of others.

I own a 3700X. It bothers me that under no circumstances will my chip boost to 4.4. I'm on custom water so it's not thermals. I've set my RAM to 2133 at ridiculously high timings to rule out a memory issue. Tried every variation of BIOS available for my mobo.

Kind of tired of the vague speak from AMD on it. Under certain conditions. What conditions? Why can't any reviewer replicate those conditions? Hell, can't even stumble on those conditions by chance. That's a lot of people TRYING to make these chips hit max boost clocks across an array of hardware configs and conditions.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
851
I still feel like this is blown way out of proportion... I have a 3700x and it's rated at 4.4 boost.... Highest I see is 4375. What a travesty.

Only people who have room to complain are 3900x owners imo... And still 4.5 ghz is not that far off from 4.6 and we still don't know if it's the boards fault or some sort of issue with the reporting software.

Also I've found my cpu does better with Pbo off. How many people are running pbo vs not?

Which agesa and ram speed on your 3700x?

It's not 25mhz for me, my 3700x never goes above 4275 on gigabyte x570 aorus pro wifi with the new 1.0.0.3ABB bios.. I've tried about every fix (including pbo off)... Just wondering



.....
I don't like the "up to max speed" references going around in defense of this. It's a cpu, and ISPs are some of the biggest crooks on the planet. Select an average value that the worst chips will see and put that on the box, as has been done for over 40 years of consumer cpus, or else drop another sku for the lower binned chips. If 125mhz under the mark like my chip is acceptable, where do we set a guideline before we decide the company is lying? 150mhz? 500mhz? And when are we allowed to open our mouths about it without forum trolls calling us crybabies?
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,072
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.

Oh, it is definitely all about nothing, just that some folks what to make it about something, as per usual.

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, someone who has a logical mindset gets it.

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.

Ah, a whataboutism, thanks. You can file that right along with the Lisa Su leaving for IBM hoax.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,926
I agree with you. The question is, why doesn't AMD?

Cause the last time AMD had superior product Intels answer was Netburst and they used it to screw them over to the point where they almost went out.

Bottom line is... the average consumer is stupid. And or the average OEM purchaser assumes they are.

AMD learned the hard way that rating systems for marketing don't work. If you advertise 4 ghz and the competition is advertising 4.6 it doesn't matter at all if your 4 ghz part is 20% faster... it slow. Just look at all the supposedly tech savvy intelligent folks around here hung up on hitting 5.0ghz. I feel for them when Intel does catch up and get 7nm parts out that won't break 4.5 either outside of a few cores boosting. Where getting to a point where transistor interference and even quantum tunneling are going to force everyone to back the hz down.
 
Last edited:

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,425
I was complaining about this weeks ago. My 3900x would not hit anywhere close to box speeds, I was stuck in the 4.3ghz range under every conceivable circumstance, with a dozen hours of tweaking and swapping stuff out to try and figure out what was wrong. The amount of fan boys just outright saying I was a moron and this was not a real issue was mind boggling. The 1.0.0.3 ABB AGESA came out and put me at 4575 max boost and that's good enough for me, but that did not fix it for everyone and it's still not technically 4.6 - I can live with it, but the release has definitely not been as smooth as many would argue. If this was Intel or Nvidia, people would be flipping lids.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,072
I was complaining about this weeks ago. My 3900x would not hit anywhere close to box speeds, I was stuck in the 4.3ghz range under every conceivable circumstance, with a dozen hours of tweaking and swapping stuff out to try and figure out what was wrong. The amount of fan boys just outright saying I was a moron and this was not a real issue was mind boggling. The 1.0.0.3 ABB AGESA came out and put me at 4575 max boost and that's good enough for me, but that did not fix it for everyone and it's still not technically 4.6 - I can live with it, but the release has definitely not been as smooth as many would argue. If this was Intel or Nvidia, people would be flipping lids.

I am personally not aware of anyone saying you were a whatever. Also, if this was Intel or Nvidia, we would not even be aware it was a thing.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
851
I was complaining about this weeks ago. My 3900x would not hit anywhere close to box speeds, I was stuck in the 4.3ghz range under every conceivable circumstance, with a dozen hours of tweaking and swapping stuff out to try and figure out what was wrong. The amount of fan boys just outright saying I was a moron and this was not a real issue was mind boggling. The 1.0.0.3 ABB AGESA came out and put me at 4575 max boost and that's good enough for me, but that did not fix it for everyone and it's still not technically 4.6 - I can live with it, but the release has definitely not been as smooth as many would argue. If this was Intel or Nvidia, people would be flipping lids.

I hear you... I've been posting looking for help with my issue since July (3700x not boosting). Since the derbauer video just dropped even motherboard vendor forums are smothered with people attacking us. We're not looking to sue AMD, we're looking to get some extra performance out of our hardware.. everyone loves overclocking but now I'm being told to shut my mouth and enjoy my underclock.. wtf internet.. lol

In a sense they're right to kneejerk on us because every little thing is suddenly mass controversy. But come on, AMD sold me 4.4ghz + pbo. Then it turned into "pbo will never boost you over box rated speed" (which goes against that AMD PBO video claim). Now its 4.4ghz is a theoretical maximum, stfu and enjoy 4.275ghz.

?????? Lol
 

elite.mafia

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,629
I own a 3700X. It bothers me that under no circumstances will my chip boost to 4.4. I'm on custom water so it's not thermals. I've set my RAM to 2133 at ridiculously high timings to rule out a memory issue. Tried every variation of BIOS available for my mobo.

Kind of tired of the vague speak from AMD on it. Under certain conditions. What conditions? Why can't any reviewer replicate those conditions? Hell, can't even stumble on those conditions by chance. That's a lot of people TRYING to make these chips hit max boost clocks across an array of hardware configs and conditions.
I have an asrock phantom gaming 4 x570. Latest bios is combo abb. What are you measuring clocks with? I find different software gives me wildly different speeds.... Cpuz seems to show 4375 sporadically when running single core benchmarks

Ram is ddr4 3000 CL 16 tforce delta ii rgb
On a 120mm aio corsair h50. Not the best cooler by any stretch but it's fine.

Not sure what else is relevant.
 

elite.mafia

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,629
Which agesa and ram speed on your 3700x?

It's not 25mhz for me, my 3700x never goes above 4275 on gigabyte x570 aorus pro wifi with the new 1.0.0.3ABB bios.. I've tried about every fix (including pbo off)... Just wondering



.....
I don't like the "up to max speed" references going around in defense of this. It's a cpu, and ISPs are some of the biggest crooks on the planet. Select an average value that the worst chips will see and put that on the box, as has been done for over 40 years of consumer cpus, or else drop another sku for the lower binned chips. If 125mhz under the mark like my chip is acceptable, where do we set a guideline before we decide the company is lying? 150mhz? 500mhz? And when are we allowed to open our mouths about it without forum trolls calling us crybabies?

I see 4275 for all core gaming loads... Sometimes it bounced between 4175 and 4275. But 4375 single core is within error margins.... See above post for my setup
 
  • Like
Reactions: GHRTW
like this

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,926
I was complaining about this weeks ago. My 3900x would not hit anywhere close to box speeds, I was stuck in the 4.3ghz range under every conceivable circumstance, with a dozen hours of tweaking and swapping stuff out to try and figure out what was wrong. The amount of fan boys just outright saying I was a moron and this was not a real issue was mind boggling. The 1.0.0.3 ABB AGESA came out and put me at 4575 max boost and that's good enough for me, but that did not fix it for everyone and it's still not technically 4.6 - I can live with it, but the release has definitely not been as smooth as many would argue. If this was Intel or Nvidia, people would be flipping lids.

My 3600 comes up just slightly short as everyones has. Perhaps it has hit the max on one core a few times I stopped paying attention. I know I'm 99% of the way to the max, and that is good enough.

I am willing to give AMD a pass not because I'm a fan boy... I give them a pass cause I'm old and my memory hasn't failed me yet. The last time AMD honestly had superior product. Intels answer was to make MHZ meaningless with netburst. AMDs answer was to do ratings systems. I'll take a "best case one of your chips cores can hit this high" marketing over "this is a Ryzen++12c 5000+".

Another reason I'll give them a pass. Intels answer to Ryzen 2 seems to be... release 40 different parts with code names ice and comet lake which we will still use (they used to not use pre production code names in end consumer marketing) make up a naming scheme that makes NO fucking sense at all. Make it even more confusing by giving the longest strings with the highest numbers to the shittiest parts, add 4 or 5 other numbers to describe the igpu on some parts but leave them off other igpu parts. Then for pure giggles lets call it all 10th generation even though we have parts being produced on 3 different fab sizes... and the cores not at all being of the same design generation. We'll just call it all 10th generation ice lake comet lake core-i7-1068G7. (I have no idea did my face roll on my keyboard just shoot out a real part ? I think so.) ;)

Anyway we all know by know what single core boost means... if my AMD chips are getting to 95% of what the max is listed as. I'm fine with that. Better that then PR ratings. I mean most of us missing the max are missing it by honestly under 1%... my chip misses by something like 0.4% I can't even argue that with a different board or ram or bios that 0.4% isn't there somewhere. Perhaps AMD should have just said max boost was 100mhz less on every part and let people be happy with their stock boosts going slightly higher. I'm guessing they are still fighting the OEM purchasers really wanting to be able to slap MHZ numbers on sales stickers.
 
Last edited:

filip

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
2,293
Saw this with the first reviews while I was standing in line at micro-center on launch day. It is not a surprise, would have gone with AMD if they had matx or mitx but they did not. AMD sucks.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
851
I see 4275 for all core gaming loads... Sometimes it bounced between 4175 and 4275. But 4375 single core is within error margins.... See above post for my setup

I use hwinfo, hwmonitor, and ryzen master (not at the same time)

I can get afterburner overlay to show 4275 all core in games if i use the amd power saving plan ( weird i i know, tried reformatting and everything ) BUT frame rates drop much lower than if I set it to performance and get 4125~ all core readout. So there is definitely an issue with frequency monitoring.

I can leave the computer on for days with monitoring software open though and never see any core maximum above 4275 regardless of bios or power plan however, so I'm on the lower end of the 3700x charts.. still good performance from CPU compared to 4790k.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,926
Saw this with the first reviews while I was standing in line at micro-center on launch day. It is not a surprise, would have gone with AMD if they had matx or mitx but they did not. AMD sucks.

There are plenty of AMD matx boards.. and a few mitx. If you mean they didn't have a bunch of small x570 boards at launch...

On launch day you could have went with a 450 or 470 smaller form factor board. But as is the case with BOTH AMD and Intel rarely do new chipsets get SFF boards at launch. In general they come a few months down the road. (there are x570 matx boards shipping now) I seem to remember Intel x370/390 boards had next to zero SFF options at launch either.
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,100
I still feel like this is blown way out of proportion... I have a 3700x and it's rated at 4.4 boost.... Highest I see is 4375. What a travesty.

Only people who have room to complain are 3900x owners imo... And still 4.5 ghz is not that far off from 4.6 and we still don't know if it's the boards fault or some sort of issue with the reporting software.

Also I've found my cpu does better with Pbo off. How many people are running pbo vs not?

Derbauer said in this video that he discarded the results that had PBO on because it can skew the results.
 

filip

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
2,293
There are plenty of AMD matx boards.. and a few mitx. If you mean they didn't have a bunch of small x570 boards at launch...

On launch day you could have went with a 450 or 470 smaller form factor board. But as is the case with BOTH AMD and Intel rarely do new chipsets get SFF boards at launch. In general they come a few months down the road. (there are x570 matx boards shipping now) I seem to remember Intel x370/390 boards had next to zero SFF options at launch either.

Why would I get the old board when the new ones have the pci 4. They hand mitx at launch they just did not distribute it properly.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
Also, if this was Intel or Nvidia, we would not even be aware it was a thing.

Aw c'mon. An Intel or Nvidia not even being able to hit the boost clocks printed on the box, you can be sure hell would be raised.

But those companies seem to habitually leave a ton of OC headroom beyond the promised boost clocks, to avoid situations like AMD's now. Better to underpromise and overdeliver, rather than max it out from the factory just to keep up.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
572
I am more pissed off I cannot get my voltages to normal levels on my Gigabyte Aorus Maaster then I am about not seeing peak boost clock on 1 core. Right now my board sees 4.2 to 4.3 on all 12 cores, but I cannot get the voltages to run where I want them. I have open loop water cooling, but still see tempers over 70c because it fluctuates from 1.35 to 1.4 volts. I'm coming from a 4770k, so even base clocks are a performance jump and I do not care about over clocking, yet my board defaults to an overclock with unacceptably high voltages. I'm running the latest bios too, and everything is default.


Otherwise, I love this chip.
 

pillagenburn

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
1,099
IMO something I'm considering is that Intel might be paying people to make a bigger deal out of this than it is.

Even the OP is needlessly inflammatory, I feel like I'm reading NBC news coverage of the Trump Administration.... it's like saying "We ran a poll and 95% of users didn't realize that AMD are domestic abusers"

You can't dismiss this possibility only because of intel's track record of monopolistic and subversive behavior.

Intel, historically, has proven itself to be a bad actor, it needs to be broken up (much like lots of other companies).
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,926
Why would I get the old board when the new ones have the pci 4. They hand mitx at launch they just did not distribute it properly.

AMD makes chipsets not boards. Yes at the launch of any chipset the mother board vendors focus on getting their bread and butter skus into stores. x570 mitx is not a bread and butter sku.... unless I'm mistaken there are 3 vendors making 3-4 total x570 mitx boards. Its extremely niche... to want to put a high end chipset into a SFF. If you are really planning to use PCI4 I really don't believe mitx is a great idea.

But anyway your blaming AMD for launch day stock supply of parts not made by AMD but by Gigabyte Asus and Asrock. (and of the 3 I doubt they all planned to ship their mitx stuff on day 1)
 
Last edited:

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,197
IMO something I'm considering is that Intel might be paying people to make a bigger deal out of this than it is.

Even the OP is needlessly inflammatory, I feel like I'm reading NBC news coverage of the Trump Administration.... it's like saying "We ran a poll and 95% of users didn't realize that AMD are domestic abusers"

You can't dismiss this possibility only because of intel's track record of monopolistic and subversive behavior.

Intel, historically, has proven itself to be a bad actor, it needs to be broken up (much like lots of other companies).
DgP4JUFWsAA91N5.jpg
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,231
IMO something I'm considering is that Intel might be paying people to make a bigger deal out of this than it is.

Even the OP is needlessly inflammatory, I feel like I'm reading NBC news coverage of the Trump Administration.... it's like saying "We ran a poll and 95% of users didn't realize that AMD are domestic abusers"

You can't dismiss this possibility only because of intel's track record of monopolistic and subversive behavior.

Intel, historically, has proven itself to be a bad actor, it needs to be broken up (much like lots of other companies).

in the case of der8uer you may not be wrong. i like most of his video's but i've always felt since zen 2 launch he's been trying to grind an axe with AMD. even the day before NDA dropping he was already shit talking AMD and he's actually the one that started this whole fiasco of boost clocks when most of the reviewers didn't really bring it up until after his video went up. ultimately though ryzen selling is bad for business for him since most of his products he helps develop are specific to the 9900k and intel hedt. whether or not that's actually the case i don't know but that's what it's honestly felt like with most of his AMD video's. either way i'll still keep watching his video's because his opinion and actions don't effect my purchasing decisions and some of the stuff he does is cool.

and if you think i'm wrong go watch pretty much his most useless video ever comparing the 9900k to the 3900x when running it without a heatsink.. most unrealistic crap ever and even in that video he couldn't refrain from trying to claim zen 2 was bad because it didn't downclock low enough to keep the cpu running without a heatsink, like really? the processor did exactly what it was suppose to and shut off.
 

Revdarian

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
2,613
Which agesa and ram speed on your 3700x?

It's not 25mhz for me, my 3700x never goes above 4275 on gigabyte x570 aorus pro wifi with the new 1.0.0.3ABB bios.. I've tried about every fix (including pbo off)... Just wondering



.....
I don't like the "up to max speed" references going around in defense of this. It's a cpu, and ISPs are some of the biggest crooks on the planet. Select an average value that the worst chips will see and put that on the box, as has been done for over 40 years of consumer cpus, or else drop another sku for the lower binned chips. If 125mhz under the mark like my chip is acceptable, where do we set a guideline before we decide the company is lying? 150mhz? 500mhz? And when are we allowed to open our mouths about it without forum trolls calling us crybabies?

Not hard numbers but %, the number I had heard when I was in college is that around 5% would be within the margin of error for most products from an engineering standpoint.

5% in your case would put you at 4180.

And I'm just pointing out that indeed they sold performance, if they upgraded the effective performance post release by around the same level then a class action based on this would have a high chance to be thrown out kinda similar to the one that was attempted against Intel for the performance it instead lost to the security measures.

Owners can feel free to try and drum up class action experts to see what they say, just remember that it's % the important metric.


Edit:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14632/amd-ryzen-3000-review-bios-update-recap
In single thread, where you would expect the max boost to affect the most, a performance increase was noted on average. Again, this is really going to be hard to prove as a negative for the chips at best.
 
Last edited:

Mchart

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,082
The latest microcode from AMD absolutely lowered clocks a little bit, and I think that's the issue.

Ultimately though, you aren't going to notice any performance difference real world with even a 300mhz lower boost clock on these CPU's.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,262
The latest microcode from AMD absolutely lowered clocks a little bit, and I think that's the issue.

Ultimately though, you aren't going to notice any performance difference real world with even a 300mhz lower boost clock on these CPU's.

Unless you’re at high Hz or VR...
 

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
351
Those are screenshots from various reviews. I don't have a Ryzen to test it myself. The reported clocks are consistent with the CPU's 25 MHz increments, so while a valid theory, I don't believe the explanation is as simple as that. Even if it was the cause, it would mean 95% of AMD motherboards are either not in spec, or they are and the CPU never had a chance to reach advertised clocks. No, the issue is elsewhere. Possibly in the poor chiplet silicon quality and AMD's bad assessment of what they would be able to produce in quantity.
No, it means 95% of people don't know how to properly setup their boards, poor cooling, shitty cases with no air flow, wrong settings etc.
 
Last edited:

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
351
It's dishonest and, while not a massive deal, it is A deal. If for nothing then for the fact that Intel and Nvidia guarantee the stated boost clock (outside specific restrictions), but with AMD there is no guaranteed performance.You could get a proper advertised performance, but most of the time you'll fall short of it and your neighbour will have some random +/- performance compared to you.

It's AMD's surprise mechanic. You paid extra for that 3600X? Tough luck, you may end up with a lower boosting CPU than a 3600. Surprise!!!

Where does it state max boost is under full load like when doing single core tests in CB15? Hell, with my 2700x, 3DMark shows it hitting over 4600Mhz in some runs. Can it substain that, no, but max boost does bot mean under full load, even under single core loads, nor does it mean that max boost is substainable. Even if it hits the max boost clocks for only a ms, that means it hits it..

however i think a lot of people misunderstand how boosting works on Ryzen.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3491-explaining-precision-boost-overdrive-benchmarks-auto-oc


If any settings are set wrong either by default, or by the user, boost won't work correctly, be it single core boost or multicore boost. There are also many variables outside of AMD's control that can have an effect on the results, many controlled by the end user.
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,459
At the end of the day are they really missing out on performance? Do the people crying even own these $500 chips? My guess is no on both parts. This is off topic but I hate the culture of people complaining about shit on behalf of others.

"Don't think, just mindlessly consume".

The only people "crying" here are the people butting their heads in to bitch and moan about the people having a perfectly calm and reasonable discussion. If you don't like the conversation then go away, you aren't forced to read it.
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,425
No, it means 95% of people don't know how to properly setup their boards, poor cooling, shitty cases with no air flow, wrong settings etc.

If 95% of 3900x chips are not hitting box boost clocks because they will not do so with QVL ram, the provided stock cooler and the proper MB then it's not the users that have the problem, it's AMD.

Where does it state max boost is under full load like when doing single core tests in CB15? Hell, with my 2700x, 3DMark shows it hitting over 4600Mhz in some runs. Can it substain that, no, but max boost does bot mean under full load, even under single core loads, nor does it mean that max boost is substainable. Even if it hits the max boost clocks for only a ms, that means it hits it..

And that's a huge cop out. Putting 4.6ghz on a box with no asterisk gives an expectation. The expectation is that the chip will hit that speed under some normal use cases. As is, the 3900x will only hit max boost at some idle transition states for a second while not doing anything or while using very specific single thread work. For gaming or any normal activity, 3900x will not consistently boost anywhere near 4.6. The issue is bad enough for many people to wonder if they had defective parts.

Is the chip bad? No. But it needs to be marketed differently. Put up to 4.4ghz on the 3900x box and it is more appropriately labeled.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,770
At what resolution do you game and care to provide numbers ?

First of all, the AMD 3900x offers insane value for the money if you're using that PC for productivity. No question about it.

I'm a new owner of a 3900x based system for about the past 2 weeks and, it's kinda cool. I don't use it a lot because my Intel system is just faster but it's cool for running benchmarks I guess.

But, .... I'm a gamer. And if I need to do any "productivity" tasks, I'm pretty sure my 16 threads @ 5ghz will crush it.

I use a 55" Samsung "BFGD" @ 1440p @ 120hz native with 2ms pixel response and 8ms input lag. So, 1440p. To answer your question.

Numbers?

Here, this will answer all your questions and then some. This a super in-depth review with both OC and stock speeds between the 9900k and the 3900x in 36 games. As you can clearly see, Intel is ahead in 95% of all those game benchmarks. But it's not just performance, it's also chipset, cpu, OS integration and maturity that Intel excels at. There is also the question of ram speed and many other metrics that are out there with AMD. https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/

So please, can people stop lying to not only others, but themselves as well and parroting all the false info that is out there? No, AMD does not match or beat Intel in gaming.

Intel 9900kf ( unlocked ) is also cheaper than the AMD 3900x ... $419 https://www.newegg.com/core-i9-9th-gen-intel-core-i9-9900kf/p/N82E16819117992

It's important to use use common sense and maintain at all times, critical thinking. Are you really into productivity or gaming? Be honest with yourself. I mean, it's your hard earned money right?

I'll put it another way, get the Intel 9900kf for $419 .... which is proven to be faster in gaming and then you get a FREE 1tb SSD or free 16gb of DDR4 memory. With the AMD 3900x ... you're not getting the fastest gaming solution and you're certainly not going to be able to save $80+ dollars.

Here's some incredible bad ass 3733Mhz DDR4 16gb memory you can buy with your savings that's only $95. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07N43CYMS/ref=twister_B07L5YSQZR?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

C'mon guys, you're all better than this.

And yes, like a lot of you, I'm really disappointed in this whole "boost speed" fiasco .... not happy at all.
 
Last edited:

Ocellaris

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
18,942
The latest microcode from AMD absolutely lowered clocks a little bit, and I think that's the issue.

Ultimately though, you aren't going to notice any performance difference real world with even a 300mhz lower boost clock on these CPU's.

Real world, most people won’t notice the difference between and Intel and an AMD CPU either... AMD is battling in the court of public opinion and feelings, playing the scrappy underdog who is up against the evil anti consumer Intel. When it is perceived AMD is starting to stretch the truth and customers aren’t getting answers, they are no better than Intel.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,262
IMO something I'm considering is that Intel might be paying people to make a bigger deal out of this than it is.

Even the OP is needlessly inflammatory, I feel like I'm reading NBC news coverage of the Trump Administration.... it's like saying "We ran a poll and 95% of users didn't realize that AMD are domestic abusers"

You can't dismiss this possibility only because of intel's track record of monopolistic and subversive behavior.

Intel, historically, has proven itself to be a bad actor, it needs to be broken up (much like lots of other companies).

I agree with folks the Ghz is misleading. I was waiting for the 3950x for the higher boost. I knew just off the cores and boost I wanted it so I patiently waited. I started to come across threads like this one and looked at the OC sections of reviews. Then started looking at OC’d 9900KFs, which have 20% higher minimums, which is huge for VR.

Basically this has to be the third time I wasted my time waiting on an AMD product based off of their data. The Fury X comes to mind as well.

TLDR:
AMD wasted my time yet again.
Got a 9900KF which I should have gotten way earlier.

So that’s why I am annoyed by all this. I could have had better VR performance earlier but held off based on AMD’s released speeds.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,197
I'm a new owner of a 3900x based system for about the past 2 weeks and, it's kinda cool. I don't use it a lot because my Intel system is just faster but it's cool for running benchmarks I guess.

But, .... I'm a gamer. And if I need to do any "productivity" tasks, I'm pretty sure my 16 threads @ 5ghz will crush it.

I use a 55" Samsung "BFGD" @ 1440p @ 120hz native with 2ms pixel response and 8ms input lag. So, 1440p. To answer your question.

Numbers?

Here, this will answer all your questions and then some. This a super in-depth review with both OC and stock speeds between the 9900k and the 3900x in 36 games. As you can clearly see, Intel is ahead in 95% of all those game benchmarks. But it's not just performance, it's also chipset, cpu, OS integration and maturity that Intel excels at. There is also the question of ram speed and many other metrics that are out there with AMD. https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/

So please, can people stop lying to not only others, but themselves as well and parroting all the false info that is out there? No, AMD does not match or beat Intel in gaming.
"On average the 3900X was 6% slower than the 9900K when gaming."
"Now with both CPUs overclocked we see very little change. Here the 3900X was just 5% slower on average, so pushing the 9900K up to 5 GHz doesn’t give it an advantage."

9900K is faster, but you may be overplaying the difference. Bump the resolution up from 1080p and/or downgrade from a 2080Ti and the difference is even smaller.
 

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
351
As a consumer I shouldn't have to change a bunch of settings to get things working almost as advertised.

I agree to a point. The problem is, they have to protect the average consumer from their own stupidity. Most can't even properly put thermal grease on, or they forget to remove the thin plastic protection layer from the heat sinks thermal compound or pad. Then they install everything into a shitty case with little or no air flow with only 1 or 2 fans... So AMD's motherboard partners have some settings disabled by default, or set to auto with very conservative limits that prevent hitting the proper speeds so the cpu doesn't burn up or constantly shits down from hitting it's thermal limits. As most of these consumers just set everything to optimized defaults and think that's all they have to do.

We won't even get into the same said consumers who go buy a no name shitty 400watt powers to power their pretty new computer.

Remember, we are not the average consumer..
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,085
First of all, the AMD 3900x offers insane value for the money if you're using that PC for productivity. No question about it.

I'm a new owner of a 3900x based system for about the past 2 weeks and, it's kinda cool. I don't use it a lot because my Intel system is just faster but it's cool for running benchmarks I guess.

But, .... I'm a gamer. And if I need to do any "productivity" tasks, I'm pretty sure my 16 threads @ 5ghz will crush it.

I use a 55" Samsung "BFGD" @ 1440p @ 120hz native with 2ms pixel response and 8ms input lag. So, 1440p. To answer your question.

Numbers?

Here, this will answer all your questions and then some. This a super in-depth review with both OC and stock speeds between the 9900k and the 3900x in 36 games. As you can clearly see, Intel is ahead in 95% of all those game benchmarks. But it's not just performance, it's also chipset, cpu, OS integration and maturity that Intel excels at. There is also the question of ram speed and many other metrics that are out there with AMD. https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/

So please, can people stop lying to not only others, but themselves as well and parroting all the false info that is out there? No, AMD does not match or beat Intel in gaming.

Intel 9900kf ( unlocked ) is also cheaper than the AMD 3900x ... $419 https://www.newegg.com/core-i9-9th-gen-intel-core-i9-9900kf/p/N82E16819117992

It's important to use use common sense and maintain at all times, critical thinking. Are you really into productivity or gaming? Be honest with yourself. I mean, it's your hard earned money right?

I'll put it another way, get the Intel 9900kf for $419 .... which is proven to be faster in gaming and then you get a FREE 1tb SSD or free 16gb of DDR4 memory. With the AMD 3900x ... you're not getting the fastest gaming solution and you're certainly not going to be able to save $80+ dollars.

Here's some incredible bad ass 3733Mhz DDR4 16gb memory you can buy with your savings that's only $95. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07N43CYMS/ref=twister_B07L5YSQZR?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

C'mon guys, you're all better than this.

And yes, like a lot of you, I'm really disappointed in this whole "boost speed" fiasco .... not happy at all.
The tests were done with all the fixes/patches to BIOS and the OS for both CPU's?
 

Riccochet

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
24,223
I agree to a point. The problem is, they have to protect the average consumer from their own stupidity. Most can't even properly put thermal grease on, or they forget to remove the thin plastic protection layer from the heat sinks thermal compound or pad. Then they install everything into a shitty case with little or no air flow with only 1 or 2 fans... So AMD's motherboard partners have some settings disabled by default, or set to auto with very conservative limits that prevent hitting the proper speeds so the cpu doesn't burn up or constantly shits down from hitting it's thermal limits. As most of these consumers just set everything to optimized defaults and think that's all they have to do.

We won't even get into the same said consumers who go buy a no name shitty 400watt powers to power their pretty new computer.

Remember, we are not the average consumer..

What does that have to do with, well, anything? What, exactly, does a CPU not working properly have to do with protecting the average consumer? So people that buy pre-built systems are supposed to expect decreased performance? On what planet is that acceptable?

I can go out today and buy an Intel mobo, Intel CPU, slap it together, and without changing a single setting anywhere I'll get advertised clocks.
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,425
I agree to a point. The problem is, they have to protect the average consumer from their own stupidity. Most can't even properly put thermal grease on, or they forget to remove the thin plastic protection layer from the heat sinks thermal compound or pad. Then they install everything into a shitty case with little or no air flow with only 1 or 2 fans... So AMD's motherboard partners have some settings disabled by default, or set to auto with very conservative limits that prevent hitting the proper speeds so the cpu doesn't burn up or constantly shits down from hitting it's thermal limits. As most of these consumers just set everything to optimized defaults and think that's all they have to do.

We won't even get into the same said consumers who go buy a no name shitty 400watt powers to power their pretty new computer.

Remember, we are not the average consumer..

And the folks responding to de8auer videos are not going to be average consumers, either.

If you have to do anything else besides properly install the chip, update the bios and install the proper chipset drivers to achieve stock box performance numbers, AMD has failed. That being said, if you have a 3900x that is not boosting to 4.6ghz, and you've used best practices to get it up and running, there is literally nothing you can do to reach higher boost speeds aside from some very tedious per CCX clock adjustment. You may be able to get one core up to 4.6, or maybe slightly above, but if you are not boosting to 4.6 stock then you will likely be unable to have success using this route.

Some say overclocking is dead on new Ryzen. It's alive and well, simply in a futile effort to try and reach stock clocks with it.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,926
Is the chip bad? No. But it needs to be marketed differently. Put up to 4.4ghz on the 3900x box and it is more appropriately labeled.

Are people really really itching for the return of PR numbers.

That is what we are going to end up with. Bottom line is the only people buying MILLIONS of dollars in chips in a single throw are OEMs. OEM purchasers know their looking for a new job if the company gets stuck with millions of dollars in inventory that needs to be blown out at or below cost to move. They assume (rightly so) that consumers are morons. If the intel part says 3.6/4.6... AMDs part CAN NOT say 4.4 on it. It doesn't matter if AMDs part destroy the comparable Intel part in 99% of the enthusiasts benchmark suites. All the average smoe buying from Dell or Best buy see is 4.6 is bigger then 4.4 and for 30 years I have heard MHZ is the measure of a chips speed.

I get that its marketing... but come on we all know 4.4 4.5 4.6 are all meaningless numbers. The difference in performance on the Ryzen 2 chips between anything over 4 ghz is miniscule at best, and hard to even measure as we are talking margin of error % performance differences in all most all cases.

The alternative is AMD starts doing internal "testing" on their chips and head back to PR numbers. Sure AMD could sell the 3900x as the the "Ryzen 2 12x 5000+" But fuck do we really want to go down that road again ?
 
Top