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

SilverSliver

Beat It To Deformation
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,280
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 ?
"AMD can't tell the truth because if people knew the truth, people would be less likely to buy the chips."

How is this a defensible position, as a consumer?
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,951
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.

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.

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 ?
What does naming scheme have to do with accurately listing the max boost speed? If AMD knowingly promised a single-core boost that most of their chips can't hit then they're lying to consumers. Its called false advertising.
 

MMitch

Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
809
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.
I think everyone agree that Intel is a "tad" faster in gaming but why do you link to 1080P results if you game at 1440P ? I was specifically asking what resolution you used because when buying bleeding edge CPU, I doubt you'll be gaming at 1080P while this still may happen you'll probably not be using the latest and greatest GPU too and nor will 170fps versus 190fps make much of a difference when you compromise multi thread potential.

Anyway, yes Intel is a little faster for gaming at lower resolution, you made your point :)

And to answer your question, I run VM, encode and the last time I gamed on this PC was fortnite with a friend and that's it in the last 3 years. I'm on a 2700X running crossfire 380. I would say Production ?

EDIT: Why do we compare 9900K to 3900K anyway other than been flagship ? If you're going to pull that value card using price compare it against the 3700X at least ;)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ca8kaf You're right crazy difference at 1440P against a 3700X.. you could buy a better GPU with the cash saved or a SSD !! Think about it.
 
Last edited:

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,582
"AMD can't tell the truth because if people knew the truth, people would be less likely to buy the chips."

How is this a defensible position, as a consumer?
Because in order to understand the "truth" that MHZ is not a way to compare 2 completely different chips from 2 completely different companies. You have to explain 20 other technologies that go over their head. And after 20 minutes they will say.... "so the bigger mhz is better right".

Yes consumers are not educated enough about how processors work to understand the nuances.

I mean lets all get a little real here what is more heinous. AMD saying max boost 4.6 and most setups only making it to 4.5ish.... or Intel slapping "10th generation" on 5 or 6 completely different parts, and then making the model numbers so long and completely illogical that even career hardware purchasers have to use cheat sheets ?

In the grand scheme of things AMD is still 10x more honest in their marketing.
 
Last edited:

SilverSliver

Beat It To Deformation
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,280
Because in order to understand the "truth" that MHZ is not a way to compare 2 completely different chips from 2 completely different companies. You have to explain 20 other technologies that go over their head. And after 20 minutes they will say.... "so the bigger mhz is better right".

Yes consumers are not well educated enough about how processors work to understand the nuances.

I mean lets all get a little real here what is more heinous. AMD saying max boost 4.6 and most chips only making it to 4.5ish.... or Intel slapping "10th generation" on 5 or 6 completely different parts, and then making the model numbers so long and completely illogical that even career hardware purchasers have to use cheat sheets ?

In the grand scheme of things AMD is still 10x more honest in their marketing.
Sounds like an AMD problem, to me. I've never bought an Intel chip and not been able to reach stock speeds. That's only an AMD thing, so far.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,582
What does naming scheme have to do with accurately listing the max boost speed? If AMD knowingly promised a single-core boost that most of their chips can't hit then they're lying to consumers. Its called false advertising.
You ever put your cars engine on a dynamometer. You wanna make any bets on how close your car gets to its rated horsepower. lol

Best case scenario is best case scenario. Hey I admit I wish they had said 4.5 instead of 4.6 and called it a day...

Still I can understand why they did. Purchasers assume average consumers (not us) are stupid, lazy and forgetful. Even if you do explain to them why a 4.4 3900x is better then a 4.6 boosted Intel chip and they get it today. They are likely to forget when they go buy their kid a laptop next week. I get why AMD is very concerned about keeping those MHZ numbers as close to intels stock marketing number as possible. After what happened way back in the athlon days. Who could blame them.

So your chip is really clocking 2% lower then the box says it can. First why do you assume you have a perfect setup you don't. Like the car engine analogy very few people do have a perfect setup that allows their engine to run at 100% of its paper spec. I'll take AMDs imo pretty clear marketing over Intels current garbally gook of naming schemes (which is going to get so much worse with their next desktop refresh) anyday. AMD is pretty clear... no one is mistaking 6 core chips for 8 core or "9th gen" for "10th" wtf that is even supposed to mean at this point.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,582
Sounds like an AMD problem, to me. I've never bought an Intel chip and not been able to reach stock speeds. That's only an AMD thing, so far.
Stock speed of a 3900x is 3.8 ghz .

Is yours not doing that ?
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,951
You ever put your cars engine on a dynamometer. You wanna make any bets on how close your car gets to its rated horsepower. lol

Best case scenario is best case scenario. Hey I admit I wish they had said 4.5 instead of 4.6 and called it a day...

Still I can understand why they did. Purchasers assume average consumers (not us) are stupid, lazy and forgetful. Even if you do explain to them why a 4.4 3900x is better then a 4.6 boosted Intel chip and they get it today. They are likely to forget when they go buy their kid a laptop next week. I get why AMD is very concerned about keeping those MHZ numbers as close to intels stock marketing number as possible. After what happened way back in the athlon days. Who could blame them.

So your chip is really clocking 2% lower then the box says it can. First why do you assume you have a perfect setup you don't. Like the car engine analogy very few people do have a perfect setup that allows their engine to run at 100% of its paper spec. I'll take AMDs imo pretty clear marketing over Intels current garbally gook of naming schemes (which is going to get so much worse with their next desktop refresh) anyday. AMD is pretty clear... no one is mistaking 6 core chips for 8 core or "9th gen" for "10th" wtf that is even supposed to mean at this point.
Cars, and even ISPs, use "ideal conditions" qualifications for their stated numbers. AMD's qualifiers don't state "only some chips can reach this for a microsecond when the moon turns blue". They promise that ALL chips can reach the single-core max boost under the right workloads. This does not appear to be true.

"Your honor, we had to lie in our marketing because our customers are morons" does not sound like a great legal defense.
 

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
350
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.
Pre built systems are usually setup properly.. as for intel, well, when you don't really change much year after year and are stuck on milking the same node for years, what do you expect. AMD's Ryzen is still in it's design is still relatively in it's early stages. The first Ryzen was 14nm, then Zen+ was 12nm, and Ryzen is 7nm... Intel has been 14nm... 14nm... 14nm..... Year after hear for how long.
 
Last edited:

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,601
"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.

"9900K is faster" ... no buts for me ... It's faster. Faster and cheaper. End of story.

Why would anyone want to "downgrade" their performance?

I'm just too busy man, I honestly don't have the time to carry on with all of this like the rest of you.

If it's ok, myself and many others are just going to stick with those 3 words. "Intel is faster" and call it a day.

You also have to seriously consider that Intel has greater maturity with their chipsets, CPU and OS integration.

The 9900kf is $419 right now at Newegg. /mind boggled ........ honestly wtf is going on with everyone here ....
 

Dayaks

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,781
"9900K is faster" ... no buts for me ... It's faster. Faster and cheaper. End of story.

Why would anyone want to "downgrade" their performance?

I'm just too busy man, I honestly don't have the time to carry on with all of this like the rest of you.

If it's ok, myself and many others are just going to stick with those 3 words. "Intel is faster" and call it a day.

You also have to seriously consider that Intel has greater maturity with their chipsets, CPU and OS integration.

The 9900kf is $419 right now at Newegg. /mind boggled ........ honestly wtf is going on with everyone here ....
Exactly. Toms Hardware where they had basically OC vs OC has a 20% difference between the two the majority of the time. Like project cars minimum, 80 vs 102 for minimums. That’s the difference between reprojection (motion sickness) and silky smooth in VR.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-review,6214-10.html

These posts, if you’re strictly a gamer, are insane. Why would I pay more for less? Low end AMD wins but we’re talking about the $400-500 range here.
 

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
350
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.
There is so much fail in this it's down right funny. About 90 to 95% of the people who respond to de8auer video are geek squad level of knowledge. I lost count years ago on how many of these type of wannabe's think they know what they are doing, and I have to fix their stupidity. The fact that you believe you should be able to install a cpu, it's heat sink, set everything to default and install the chipset drivers, and all should work, shows that you are right there with the geek squad crew.
 
Last edited:

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,832
Well, I see this is a successful AMD thread again, as per usual. Enjoy playing your Intel Benchmarks, I will enjoy using the full features of my systems. :)

Exactly. Toms Hardware where they had basically OC vs OC has a 20% difference between the two the majority of the time. Like project cars minimum, 80 vs 102 for minimums. That’s the difference between reprojection (motion sickness) and silky smooth in VR.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-review,6214-10.html

These posts, if you’re strictly a gamer, are insane. Why would I pay more for less? Low end AMD wins but we’re talking about the $400-500 range here.
The processor is temporarily on sale so, if you want to buy it in the next 7 days and only game, go for it. For everything else, not so good.
 
Last edited:

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,601
I think everyone agree that Intel is a "tad" faster in gaming but why do you link to 1080P results if you game at 1440P ? I was specifically asking what resolution you used because when buying bleeding edge CPU, I doubt you'll be gaming at 1080P while this still may happen you'll probably not be using the latest and greatest GPU too and nor will 170fps versus 190fps make much of a difference when you compromise multi thread potential.

Anyway, yes Intel is a little faster for gaming at lower resolution, you made your point :)

And to answer your question, I run VM, encode and the last time I gamed on this PC was fortnite with a friend and that's it in the last 3 years. I'm on a 2700X running crossfire 380. I would say Production ?

EDIT: Why do we compare 9900K to 3900K anyway other than been flagship ? If you're going to pull that value card using price compare it against the 3700X at least ;)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ca8kaf You're right crazy difference at 1440P against a 3700X.. you could buy a better GPU with the cash saved or a SSD !! Think about it.

Again, AMD is a very budget friendly brand. We are lucky to have this option. Lot of you guys are stretched, on a budget. Thank god for AMD is what I say, right?

And if you truly into productivity, AMD is an incredible value with all those chiplet cores they've hacked onto a single chip. Hats off.

It's not so much a point that I am trying to make other than just getting people to stop lying to one another and themselves. That's really what I want to achieve. Lot of you guys get to smelling your own funk and after awhile, they become nose blind and it becomes fact, which it isn't.

1080p is the average gaming resolution. Even at 1440p I'm still above AMD with my Intel.

I compared the the highest end because that's what people aspire to own. Look, people have posters of Lambo's on their walls, not posters of AMD Durons.
 

Dayaks

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,781
These CPUs don’t really get much extra performance out of clockrate past a certain point. You’ll still largely be GPU limited.
For VR I definitely got a smoother experience. My random spikes I had with Ryzen are gone. (And I didn’t change software at all, just plopped in a 9900KF/mobo) On top of that I’ve read about Ryzen incompatibility with wireless VR which I want to get for Christmas.

The 3950x is/was appealing, but I just dick around with Adobe Premiere here and there. Not like the 9900K / KF is a slouch... if this wasn’t my VR rig I would have still have gone AMD tbh, since I had an AMD mobo already.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,896
So, to sum up, the CPUs not reaching their specified and advertised clocks is not a problem because one of the following: "I don't care", "it's up to [by that logic it's up to 5.5 GHz as well]", "it can gain performance elsewhere so it doesn't matter", "you're configuring it wrong" and "Intel is faster in games, so who cares".
 

pillagenburn

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
1,082
It seems like, in this thread, the AMD detractors are splitting pubes when it comes to performance comparisons.

If one is willing to split pubes over unnoticeable differences in edge case /bleeding edge performance scenarios; in which AMD "wastes" the time of consumers.... and this somehow impunes their corporate character as being malicious or misleading......

Then I invite you to evaluate the corporate character of a company that put its customers at *tangible* security risks for a decade or more and still refuses to address the vulnerabilities in their products which consumers, inexplicably, continue to purchase. All in the name of gaining the ****ILLEGITIMATE**** performance crown over their competitor.

Trying to call AMD somehow malicious or misleading at this point is really the pot calling the kettle black.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

elite.mafia

Broke Back [H]
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
12,575
"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.
Why bother to quote my post if you are going to needlessly twist my words?
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,951
It seems like, in this thread, the AMD detractors are splitting pubes when it comes to performance comparisons.

If one is willing to split pubes over unnoticeable differences in edge case /bleeding edge performance scenarios; in which AMD "wastes" the time of consumers.... and this somehow impunes their corporate character as being malicious or misleading......

Then I invite you to evaluate the corporate character of a company that put its customers at *tangible* security risks for a decade or more and still refuses to address the vulnerabilities in their products which consumers, inexplicably, continue to purchase. All in the name of gaining the ****ILLEGITIMATE**** performance crown over their competitor.

Trying to call AMD somehow malicious or misleading at this point is really the pot calling the kettle black.
"Hey this other company does shitty things" is not a defense.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
792
Maybe a simple BIOS update is all that is needed?
Probably, but it's likely a required AGESA update from AMD that we're waiting for, board manufacturers are at AMDs mercy with the inner workings of these boost algorithms AFAIK.. I'm on the 3rd bios update for my board that just came out 2 days ago, still no change.

I'm sure AMD is under heavy pressure to get this working, and they were before this became a highlight topic. 3xxx series owners have been aware of this since the 7th of July, it's not new news. Gigabyte x570 aorus thread alone on another forum has nearly 2000 posts of Q&A. Again though, it wasn't until the video from yesterday that the arguing really started. Nobody suggested class action suits or anything, most of us including me have just assumed it's an early adopter kink (not unusual on day 1 launches w/ new architectures). Reps from certain board vendors (namely gigabyte) have been extremely busy answering our questions and submitting bug reports on our behalf.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,951
That's an asinine line of thinking.... that's like comparing the neighbor that got too drunk at a party and got in a fight to the OTHER neighbor that runs a meth lab out of his basement.
Why are you comparing anything? Intel has fuck all to do with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this

RPGWiZaRD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,093
I knew manufacturers were starting to push the boundaries more and more as far as clocks goes but AMD really went one step too far. It's a bit like Intel would be advertising boost clocks of 5.1GHz on a 9900K.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
792
Stock clock speed for a 3700x is 3.6GHz
Oh go away with these marketing semantics arguments. 9900k stock clock speed is also 3.6ghz. You act like nobody would have anything to say if the box says 5ghz boost but the chip maxes out at 3650mhz because reasons.

9900k says 5ghz boost, joe schmo consumer wants to see single cores hitting 5ghz. 3700x says 4.4ghz, joe schmo consumer wants to see 4.4ghz. You guys are acting like we're asking for a unicorn carrying bags of money.
 

pillagenburn

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
1,082
Why are you comparing anything? Intel has fuck all to do with this.
Because the OP used the word "deceptive" and I've seen Intel's name being thrown around, in this thread, as the alternative to AMD's so-called "deception".....

And I wanted to remind everyone what real deception looks like - and it surely isn't AMD even in this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,582
Box says 4.6. Mine ran for a month at 4.3, until an updated bios fixed that and it will hit 4.575 in some rare cases.
No box says..
3.8 ghz base clock.
4.6 MAX boost.

For full perspective..... 4.575 is 99.46% of 4.6. So your current setup is 0.54% off the MAX boost. That is margin of error. Of course it would have been nice to see it go 4.625 instead of something, there would be zero difference in terms of performance anyway.
 

SilverSliver

Beat It To Deformation
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,280
There is so much fail in this it's down right funny. About 90 to 95% of the people who respond to de8auer video are geek squad level of knowledge. I lost count years ago on how many of these type of wannabe's think they know what they are doing, and I have to fix their stupidity. The fact that you believe you should be able to install a cpu, it's heat sink, set everything to default and install the chipset drivers, and all should work, shows that you are right there with the geek squad crew.
I dunno, that's only how it's worked for me on my last 10 builds. You keep doing help desk and pumping your dozens of dollars of AMD stock, though.
 

MMitch

Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
809
Again, AMD is a very budget friendly brand. We are lucky to have this option. Lot of you guys are stretched, on a budget. Thank god for AMD is what I say, right?
And if you truly into productivity, AMD is an incredible value with all those chiplet cores they've hacked onto a single chip. Hats off.
It's not so much a point that I am trying to make other than just getting people to stop lying to one another and themselves. That's really what I want to achieve. Lot of you guys get to smelling your own funk and after awhile, they become nose blind and it becomes fact, which it isn't.
1080p is the average gaming resolution. Even at 1440p I'm still above AMD with my Intel.
I compared the the highest end because that's what people aspire to own. Look, people have posters of Lambo's on their walls, not posters of AMD Durons.
I was simply trying to understand your point, no need to mention you have more budget than others (at least that how I interpreted your first sentence, sorry otherwise).
You mention 1080P is the average resolution (or most popular), I agree but let's also agree that 9900K/3900X aren't the average and the metric you used to determine where 1080P stands is skewed at best when you factor the CPU in the equation.
Anyway, I think we can agree that Intel has some upper in gaming (~5% when all benchmarks combined at 1440P from what I saw in the link I posted against a 3700X) and that AMD has the bang for buck and all around CPU (Again with the 3700/X).

Anyway where did you read anyone say AMD was better at gaming ? Define better too ? AMD is better at giving you more for your money but raw perf, intel wins in this department. I'm sure that's what you read everywhere so no need to act like that.
 

wizzi01

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
2,591
Oh go away with these marketing semantics arguments. 9900k stock clock speed is also 3.6ghz. You act like nobody would have anything to say if the box says 5ghz boost but the chip maxes out at 3650mhz because reasons.

9900k says 5ghz boost, joe schmo consumer wants to see single cores hitting 5ghz. 3700x says 4.4ghz, joe schmo consumer wants to see 4.4ghz. You guys are acting like we're asking for a unicorn carrying bags of money.
I replied to someone that said stock clock. If you don't understand that then i don't know any language that can help someone like you.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,951
Because the OP used the word "deceptive" and I've seen Intel's name being thrown around, in this thread, as the alternative to AMD's so-called "deception".....

And I wanted to remind everyone what real deception looks like - and it surely isn't AMD even in this case.
Lying about the max boost IS real deception. Intel's shitty tactics are also entirely irrelevant. One company lying does not excuse another company doing the same thing. You might as well say "but children are starving is Africa" in response to every single issue. Its the same level of strawmanning.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
792
I replied to someone that said stock clock. If you don't understand that then i don't know any language that can help someone like you.
You knew exactly what the person you quoted was talking about and chose to pull a semantic strawman out of your hat. Get real.
 

KazeoHin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,057
Are we all forgetting that video AMD released about Precision Boost allowing the chip to naturally boost OVER the rated 'Max boost' spec of the CPU?


Yeah, guys let's just face the facts. AMD has falsely advertised the boost clocks of these chips.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
792
Are we all forgetting that video AMD released about Precision Boost allowing the chip to naturally boost OVER the rated 'Max boost' spec of the CPU?


Yeah, guys let's just face the facts. AMD has falsely advertised the boost clocks of these chips.
I haven't.


Reason I bought a $270 motherboard when I could have just grabbed the x470 aorus for $100 and had the same performance :p
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,582
"9900K is faster" ... no buts for me ... It's faster. Faster and cheaper. End of story.

Why would anyone want to "downgrade" their performance?

I'm just too busy man, I honestly don't have the time to carry on with all of this like the rest of you.

If it's ok, myself and many others are just going to stick with those 3 words. "Intel is faster" and call it a day.

You also have to seriously consider that Intel has greater maturity with their chipsets, CPU and OS integration.

The 9900kf is $419 right now at Newegg. /mind boggled ........ honestly wtf is going on with everyone here ....
Intel is faster in SOME games.

If your going to boil it down to the most basic of things there it is. It is slightly (very slightly) faster in a few games (not all, and not at all resolutions or GPU combos) it is more expensive cause like it or not 9900k is an 8 core part not 12. The direct comparison is 3800x not 3900x. Intel does not ship any 12 core consumer parts.... closest you can get is a 10 core Intel part for more then twice the coin. Sorry they are not cheaper. They may be a bit cheaper if ALL you give a shit about is a handful of games at 1080p high refresh and have no need for more cores.
 
Top