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
4,896
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.
That was quickly put in the "typical AMD marketing bullshit" which nobody takes seriously anymore.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
792
That was quickly put in the "typical AMD marketing bullshit" which nobody takes seriously anymore.
Fooled me, first AMD CPU I bought since the Phenom II, they weren't really like this at that time.. Oh well, you live and you learn!
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,582
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.
There are plenty of threads around with people complaining they are not seeing 5.0ghz out of their 9900ks. Perhaps someone should do a informal lottery looser echo chamber type super scientific survey. ;)
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,315
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.
Yeah, we're really getting into the weeds here for what amounts to less than 100 MHz and probably no perceivable difference.

On my system it was 75 MHz off (4.325 rather than 4.4). So 98% of the max boost. Sure I wouldn't mind getting the full 4.4 (or higher) but I can't imagine it makes much of a difference.

And I spent years trying to overclock to 5 GHz, finally got it on my 8700K but I set it back to stock now. The GHz doesn't matter, I just use my computer and am happy.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,582
Yeah, we're really getting into the weeds here for what amounts to less than 100 MHz and probably no perceivable difference.

On my system it was 75 MHz off (4.325 rather than 4.4). So 98% of the max boost. Sure I wouldn't mind getting the full 4.4 (or higher) but I can't imagine it makes much of a difference.

And I spent years trying to overclock to 5 GHz, finally got it on my 8700K but I set it back to stock now. The GHz doesn't matter, I just use my computer and am happy.
My 3600x also hits 4.325. Ya I'm more then happy with that. I expected it to be a decent chip... but I am wowed by fast that system feels. And it really is a budget build. Best bang for the buck I have ever gotten. In that I know for what I'm doing right now I wouldn't notice any difference even if I tripled my CPU budget.

Going to pick up a basic AIO for it this week... was planning to swap cases as well. Doing a bit of audio recording again and just want to get the overall noise level down. Will be interested to see if it does any better. Won't bother me any if it doesn't though.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
792
There are plenty of threads around with people complaining they are not seeing 5.0ghz out of their 9900ks. Perhaps someone should do a informal lottery looser echo chamber type super scientific survey. ;)
I've seen some of those posts too tbh. My point is just why are those of us with the AMD chip suddenly crybabies for asking why we can't get what we expected when we bought the product. I agree pitchforks and lawsuits are ridiculous over this, but nothing wrong with trying to get these running faster and asking AMD not to print confusion on the box. I don't think Intel should do it either, if the chip can't touch it's max advertised boost.. just drop it down to a lower SKU and charge a few bucks less for people who don't care for the higher bin.

Personally I just like overclocking and tweaking my system for that extra few %. I'd be happy to see 4375 like the 'average' 3700x user even though that's only about 2% more single core on top of mine.

I guess things have changed quite a lot since I bought my 4790k. It said "Up to 4.4ghz" (exact words), and under most load you would see 4400mhz sustained. Everyone would have assumed something was wrong if it could only do 4275.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this

SilverSliver

Beat It To Deformation
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,280
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
No joke. I was actually concerned about VRMs and power delivery and all that jazz for overclocking.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
792
No joke. I was actually concerned about VRMs and power delivery and all that jazz for overclocking.
Many people who didn't already have a decent AM4 board (including me) were interested in the VRM.. The platform quickly went from the possibility of decent overclocks, to no overclocks, to less than advertised clocks in a matter of one week between that video and the hardware being in our hands.

I suppose this is just 2019 marketing strategy and I'm getting old. In the past you got exactly what was on the box (including turbo / boost clocks) and anything beyond that was the gamble. Now getting what's on the box is a gamble according to what I'm learning here today.
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,951
Many people who didn't already have a decent AM4 board (including me) were interested in the VRM.. and comically, derbauer was at the center of that too with his VRM videos being posted on his channel and gamer's nexus circa late june - early july. The platform quickly went from the possibility of decent overclocks, to no overclocks, to less than advertised clocks in a matter of one week between that video and the hardware being in our hands.

I suppose this is just 2019 marketing strategy and I'm getting old. In the past you got exactly what was on the box (including turbo / boost clocks) and anything beyond that was the gamble. Now getting what's on the box is a gamble according to what I'm learning here today.
Buildzoid does all the VRM analysis videos, not der8auer.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,832
My 3600x also hits 4.325. Ya I'm more then happy with that. I expected it to be a decent chip... but I am wowed by fast that system feels. And it really is a budget build. Best bang for the buck I have ever gotten. In that I know for what I'm doing right now I wouldn't notice any difference even if I tripled my CPU budget.

Going to pick up a basic AIO for it this week... was planning to swap cases as well. Doing a bit of audio recording again and just want to get the overall noise level down. Will be interested to see if it does any better. Won't bother me any if it doesn't though.
Do a Noctua NH-D15, it will perform well and will be quieter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this

MMitch

Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
809
I've seen some of those posts too tbh. My point is just why are those of us with the AMD chip suddenly crybabies for asking why we can't get what we expected when we bought the product. I agree pitchforks and lawsuits are ridiculous over this, but nothing wrong with trying to get these running faster and asking AMD not to print confusion on the box. I don't think Intel should do it either, if the chip can't touch it's max advertised boost.. just drop it down to a lower SKU and charge a few bucks less for people who don't care for the higher bin.

Personally I just like overclocking and tweaking my system for that extra few %. I'd be happy to see 4375 like the 'average' 3700x user even though that's only about 2% more single core on top of mine.

I guess things have changed quite a lot since I bought my 4790k. It said "Up to 4.4ghz" (exact words), and under most load you would see 4400mhz sustained. Everyone would have assumed something was wrong if it could only do 4275.
You're totally right for interpreting it like that and wanting it however, I'm not sure that's how AMD intended to write it. I really think they wanted the highest GHz possible to be close to Intel's offering.
We're not saying you're crybabies, you that you got burnt by PR department.

Did you read reviews before you bought ? I assume yes.
Did those review boosted to the 4.6GHz mark ?
What is everyone looking for when they OC ? All core stable OC or base clock + max 1 core OC ?
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
792
You're totally right for interpreting it like that and wanting it however, I'm not sure that's how AMD intended to write it. I really think they wanted the highest GHz possible to be close to Intel's offering.
We're not saying you're crybabies, you that you got burnt by PR department.

Did you read reviews before you bought ? I assume yes.
Did those review boosted to the 4.6GHz mark ?
What is everyone looking for when they OC ? All core stable OC or base clock + max 1 core OC ?
Good questions.
-Yeah I read reviews, I knew there was no OC headroom at launch. However that PBO video mentioned before did give me hope of single core boosts as high as 4.6 (i have a 3700x) once things get tweaked... I believe he did say imagine boosts as high as 4.75ghz (3900x surely), which kept me hooked on buying. This is a big one, it motivated me to rush in and buy an expensive board because I heard it come from an actual AMD employee's mouth. Lesson learned there though. Gamer's Nexus review said "PBO is broken right now" - I should have waited to see if it ever got unbroken.
-Boosts were a bit mixed so I knew I was getting myself into an early adopter situation, assumed AGESA/Bios would take care of it. Those updates seem to have slowed me down a bit more in order to save on voltage, since the chips were running very hot out of the box even on water.
-Mix of course, I was happy to see most people getting ~4.2ghz all core and sometimes more. I'm good with that. On that side of things, it's well above the all core base clock. Boost clock after seeing the PBO video, I suppose I was banking on seeing 4450-4550 (3700x) after water cooling and running an aorus pro wifi. I ordered my part before people [gamers nexus?] started saying PBO will never boost above the max rated clock, so again, it was really just AMD marketing and that PBO video that really damaged this launch.

Most of the counter-arguments are right though. IF the box for my 3700x said 3.6ghz base, 4.2ghz boost, i'd be fine with it. I just feel marketing has gone a bit too far and I don't like the precedence this sets if we just stay silent. Maybe next iteration I'll be told to accept -250mhz instead of my -125.. etc.

for readers reference, I've never seen my 3700x go above 4275 on any core (yet..)

marketing.PNG
I think this here is the heart of the issue. This guy sold me the system with this, and surely many others.
 
Last edited:

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,328
fwiw, my 3600 pretty much stays at 4200MHz, currently on water with a 3x140mm rad shared with a 5700xt.
 

nEo717

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
344
Only one core will hit AMD's rated boost frequency - AMD confirmed some cores in Ryzen 3000-series processors are faster than others, which is denoted in Ryzen Master. That means that not all cores on can hit the single-core turbo frequencies. Instead, there are a mix of fast and slow cores.

For those who are NOT seeing the boost speeds - are you running everything at stock speeds (everything) and checking or looking at only the 1 (single) fastest core? It would be great if AMD had a solid boost speed to all cores, then perhaps boost 3 for or peek speeds listed for just the 1 single fastest core - That could help with all the confusion and over promising marketing information.

Tom's Hardware confirmed this:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3000-turbo-boost-frequency-analysis,6253.html
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
792
Only one core will hit AMD's rated boost frequency - AMD confirmed some cores in Ryzen 3000-series processors are faster than others, which is denoted in Ryzen Master. That means that not all cores on can hit the single-core turbo frequencies. Instead, there are a mix of fast and slow cores.

For those who are NOT seeing the boost speeds - are you running everything at stock speeds (everything) and checking or looking at only the 1 (single) fastest core? It would be great if AMD had a solid boost speed to all cores, then perhaps boost 3 for or peek speeds listed for just the 1 single fastest core - That could help with all the confusion and over promising marketing information.

Tom's Hardware confirmed this:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3000-turbo-boost-frequency-analysis,6253.html
Yep. Have been through the gamut of bioses, settings (including dropping ram speeds), power saving features, reformatting and reinstalling chipset drivers, etc.

I can leave hwinfo or hwmonitor open for days and you'll never see any core go over 4275 (rated 4400 on 3700x). I'll get around 4150 on all cores while gaming. "4275" on all cores while gaming with "AMD power savings plan" (makes no sense) but with much lower frame rates (and bench scores) than the 4150mhz on performance mode [obvious frequency monitoring issue].

Ryzen Master does show the best and second best core on my CCX, however they never seem to even try boosting above what other cores do.

From what I understand, the only difference between my chip and a "working chip" is that the working ones will boost to 4400 for a microsecond every now and again, so even people hitting the rated clocks aren't happy with it.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,601
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.
Wait, I have to speak from what I know, want and desire, my POV. You telling me not to mention what I have because you're assuming I'm somehow ... flaunting? My budget?" That would be crippling my ability to speak from my experience. You're def looking at this the wrong way.

The problem is, we all have opinions. It really seems to me that you're taking issue at some key facts here, things you don't want to here or admit to yourself. In fact, lot of you are making excuses and brushing this off or that off. Please, stop. Look, character and fortitude is formed when one faces adversity head-on and deals with it while maintaining pose and intellect. This is honestly a chance for you to grow ... not be salty. Just listen to your peers, respect the facts and take it all in. Don't make excuses. AMD got knocked down with der8auer's explosive expose'. I think we are all very disappointed here. I know I am. It's up to AMD how they pick themselves up and carry on. And, to a point, it's fan-boys. Believe it or not, I am rooting for you AMD guys.

AMD will def will be back at it with next year's Ryzen refresh. I expect them to raise performance and sort this "boost speed" issue out better. Maybe even match or bear Intel in gaming performance. There's a few billion dollars in profit at stake here ... I expect both AMD and Intel to come out swinging in 2020.

It's a dark day for AMD. I do not find any happiness in this news at all. We are all "CPU Brothers" regardless if your Intel or AMD ... I hang my head down with the rest of you. /fist raised /yell SOLIDARITY!
 

nEo717

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
344
Yep. Have been through the gamut of bioses, settings (including dropping ram speeds), power saving features, reformatting and reinstalling chipset drivers, etc.

I can leave hwinfo or hwmonitor open for days and you'll never see any core go over 4275 (rated 4400 on 3700x). I'll get around 4150 on all cores while gaming. "4275" on all cores while gaming with "AMD power savings plan" (makes no sense) but with much lower frame rates (and bench scores) than the 4150mhz on performance mode [obvious frequency monitoring issue].

Ryzen Master does show the best and second best core on my CCX, however they never seem to even try boosting above what other cores do.

From what I understand, the only difference between my chip and a "working chip" is that the working ones will boost to 4400 for a microsecond every now and again, so even people hitting the rated clocks aren't happy with it.
-------

I don't really know from a legal standpoint (I'm sure there a few lawyers in here for that anyways) - From a consumer standpoint, AMD has defined what they mean (single best core peak clock) - if their products don't hit these marks - It will be interesting to see if that translates into any sort of consumer back-lash or even change from AMD as to the marketing of such high peak clocks. I'm for one surprised to see this be an issue at 7nm for AMD - Makes we wonder about the walls Intel has ran into at 7/10nm...
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,582
Do a Noctua NH-D15, it will perform well and will be quieter.
I have been considering that. Where I am the local good part shop has Cool Master 240L AIOs for $80 Canadian. A D15 is $140... main reason I was leaning toward the AIO. Having said that they do have the NH-U14s for $100. Your point is well taken though... for 20 bucks probably be quitter and leaks won't ever be an issue.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
792
-------

I don't really know from a legal standpoint (I'm sure there a few lawyers in here for that anyways) - From a consumer standpoint, AMD has defined what they mean (single best core peak clock) - if their products don't hit these marks - It will be interesting to see if that translates into any sort of consumer back-lash or even change from AMD as to the marketing of such high peak clocks. I'm for one surprised to see this be an issue at 7nm for AMD - Makes we wonder about the walls Intel has ran into at 7/10nm...
No idea what it means legally, I'm not worried about that over a few hundred bucks, but I would like to see AMD straighten out the marketing. The chips were good enough as it is even if they had just advertised them to have max boosts of 4.25ghz. The marketing risk was unnecessary methinks.. My 3700x is coming in decently close to a 9900k for less money. Also, maybe it still is just an early adopter quirk.. maybe an AGESA will drop in the next few weeks that suddenly makes my CPU hit 4.4ghz.

I have a feeling Intel has lagged behind on a new node largely due to this, probably waiting for enough maturity to get this silicon hitting numbers that will result in at least a gain decently beyond the 9900k in real world use. Not sure what real world IPC gains are coming from Intel to counter the frequency loss yet. OR maybe we'll still see 8 5ghz cores on the new 10nm node with an IPC gain, and my ryzen rig goes on ebay :p
 

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
350
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.
Your last 10 builds must have been Intel. Look above, i already answered that topic, and it's what you get when one company milks the same technology for years.

Never worked a Help desk in my life, owned 2 computer repair businesses however.. you and your geek squad buddies have made me tons of money over the years.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
976
I think this here is the heart of the issue. This guy sold me the system with this, and surely many others.
After watching this video I decided to buy AMD 3600X to go in my X470 Motherboard.All I do is game and for half the price of a 9900K for equal gaming at around 4600Mhz on the 3600X I was sold.
Turns out I did OK with Beta BIOS boost 4525Mhz but with newest BIOS limited to 4250Mhz and I do not mind one bit,still get the same scores and performance.

AMD fucked up and it does not look good at all.I am satisfied with my 3600X anyway this is what the video said is possible.This is what sold me in the video.

Ryzen 9 3950X -4700 Max Boost + 200Mhz = Up to 4900Mhz
Ryzen 9 3900X -4600 Max Boost + 200Mhz = Up to 4800Mhz
Ryzen 7 3800X -4500 Max Boost + 200Mhz = Up to 4700Mhz
Ryzen 7 3700X -4400 Max Boost + 200Mhz = Up to 4600Mhz
Ryzen 5 3600X -4400 Max Boost + 200Mhz = Up to 4600Mhz
Ryzen 5 3600 -4200 Max Boost + 200Mhz = Up to 4400Mhz
 

SilverSliver

Beat It To Deformation
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,280
Your last 10 builds must have been Intel. Look above, i already answered that topic, and it's what you get when one company milks it's the same technology for years.

Never worked a Help desk in my life, owned 2 computer repair businesses however.. you and your geek squad buddies have made me tons of money over the years.
Cool. Intel just works. I'll keep that in mind.

Don't be so bitter and angry, you'll make it eventually.
 

thebufenator

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,228
I really don't think it has to do with "working" chips, but motherboard and BIOS.

I started off testing my 3700x in an Asus X370-F Strix. With the 1002 AGESA I was seeing 4400 on more than one core at random times. Not just limited to a "golden core"

Once updated to the 1003ABA AGESA, it boosted lower, to about 4375 max. It also clocked memory higher, and had a slight increase in performance over the 1002 AGESA bios.

I also used an x570 board, which is what I ended up using. Memory clocks easily, but its boosting is also capped at 4375. Most cores don't seem to go higher than 4325-4350.
 

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
350
Cool. Intel just works. I'll keep that in mind.

Don't be so bitter and angry, you'll make it eventually.
Who's bitter and angry? And intel doesn't just work, it has it's share of problems, even on old milked tech. Not sure what your last part means, as I have no issues, and I am living the dream.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,988
After watching this video I decided to buy AMD 3600X to go in my X470 Motherboard.All I do is game and for half the price of a 9900K for equal gaming at around 4600Mhz on the 3600X I was sold.
Turns out I did OK with Beta BIOS boost 4525Mhz but with newest BIOS limited to 4250Mhz and I do not mind one bit,still get the same scores and performance.

AMD fucked up and it does not look good at all.I am satisfied with my 3600X anyway this is what the video said is possible.This is what sold me in the video.

Ryzen 9 3950X -4700 Max Boost + 200Mhz = Up to 4900Mhz
Ryzen 9 3900X -4600 Max Boost + 200Mhz = Up to 4800Mhz
Ryzen 7 3800X -4500 Max Boost + 200Mhz = Up to 4700Mhz
Ryzen 7 3700X -4400 Max Boost + 200Mhz = Up to 4600Mhz
Ryzen 5 3600X -4400 Max Boost + 200Mhz = Up to 4600Mhz
Ryzen 5 3600 -4200 Max Boost + 200Mhz = Up to 4400Mhz
That table is beyond wishful thinking.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
976
That table is beyond wishful thinking.
It is not an untrue table.It is not a hype table.It is what the AMD executive PR Manager said and even made a video on.Who would I believe as a casual gamer before release.
The rumors of 5.0Ghz AMD CPU or the actual AMD PR Guy.

Also my 2 x 3600X still gets great clocks on Beta BIOS and like I said it still does not make a difference in performance at all. Between Beta BIOS and New BIOS
 

SilverSliver

Beat It To Deformation
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,280
Do you work only 6 months a year (actually it's more like 3 months actually working).. make a six figure income and get the pleasure of enjoying life to the fullest? Get back to ne when you there, but you have to move out of your parents basement first. Till then keep pounding those keys and acting like you know something.
I'm retired. I dunno why you are so angry about Intel chips working with minimal effort and AMD chips requiring some sort of intimate technical knowledge to perform at stock advertised speeds, and by intimate knowledge I mean 5% will out of the box.

You really gotta relax.
 

Mode13

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
792
That table is beyond wishful thinking.
Beyond wishful thinking, but he's right.. It's what was explained to consumers in that video in plain English as within reason given ample cooling and a good vrm. I posted the SS on the prior page where he showed PBO taking a 4550 boost core up to 4750.

Seeing it written down that way makes it even more hilarious with the 3950x.

This is straight from AMD themselves and still posted on their youtube. I can also bet precisely 0 people without LN2 have seen 4.75ghz on any ryzen 3xxx core.
 

MMitch

Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
809
Wait, I have to speak from what I know, want and desire, my POV. You telling me not to mention what I have because you're assuming I'm somehow ... flaunting? My budget?" That would be crippling my ability to speak from my experience. You're def looking at this the wrong way.

The problem is, we all have opinions. It really seems to me that you're taking issue at some key facts here, things you don't want to here or admit to yourself. In fact, lot of you are making excuses and brushing this off or that off. Please, stop. Look, character and fortitude is formed when one faces adversity head-on and deals with it while maintaining pose and intellect. This is honestly a chance for you to grow ... not be salty. Just listen to your peers, respect the facts and take it all in. Don't make excuses. AMD got knocked down with der8auer's explosive expose'. I think we are all very disappointed here. I know I am. It's up to AMD how they pick themselves up and carry on. And, to a point, it's fan-boys. Believe it or not, I am rooting for you AMD guys.

AMD will def will be back at it with next year's Ryzen refresh. I expect them to raise performance and sort this "boost speed" issue out better. Maybe even match or bear Intel in gaming performance. There's a few billion dollars in profit at stake here ... I expect both AMD and Intel to come out swinging in 2020.

It's a dark day for AMD. I do not find any happiness in this news at all. We are all "CPU Brothers" regardless if your Intel or AMD ... I hang my head down with the rest of you. /fist raised /yell SOLIDARITY!
What the hell ? From the get go you were saying to stop say AMD is better or the same for gaming and I said you were right, raw performance Intel is ahead. I just didn't like the way you phrased it and wanted to understand why you were so emotional, you seemed to to put the goal post so far ahead between the two.
Anyway, just like you I have my opinion and just like you I'm entitled to it. I don't recall replying rude to you and didn't meant to tickle your emotion.

Let's nuke this from orbit and move on.
 

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
350
I'm retired. I dunno why you are so angry about Intel chips working with minimal effort and AMD chips requiring some sort of intimate technical knowledge to perform at stock advertised speeds, and by intimate knowledge I mean 5% will out of the box.

You really gotta relax.
LOL!! It's new technology that is still in it's infancy, not reused worn out milked tech. Wait till Intel comes out with new technology... Watch that shit storm that's going to take place.
 

ccityinstaller

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
4,236
I really don't think it has to do with "working" chips, but motherboard and BIOS.

I started off testing my 3700x in an Asus X370-F Strix. With the 1002 AGESA I was seeing 4400 on more than one core at random times. Not just limited to a "golden core"

Once updated to the 1003ABA AGESA, it boosted lower, to about 4375 max. It also clocked memory higher, and had a slight increase in performance over the 1002 AGESA bios.

I also used an x570 board, which is what I ended up using. Memory clocks easily, but its boosting is also capped at 4375. Most cores don't seem to go higher than 4325-4350.
My results mirror yours...Was boosting very nice in CB20 on first bios on sig system. Was scoring over 507 in ST..

New bios has improved memory stabilization to 3400 14 across and better performance. I have a custom loop and see 43750-4375 on my 2 fastest cores which is normal since my blk is never up to 100mhz. It is usually 99.xx something.
 

clockdogg

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
1,037
I have been considering that. Where I am the local good part shop has Cool Master 240L AIOs for $80 Canadian. A D15 is $140... main reason I was leaning toward the AIO. Having said that they do have the NH-U14s for $100. Your point is well taken though... for 20 bucks probably be quitter and leaks won't ever be an issue.
Amazon.ca has the D15S for $99 CDN and the D15 for $109 - and as does newegg.ca: D15 at $109 CDN - D15S for $99 with free shipping for either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this

SilverSliver

Beat It To Deformation
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,280
LOL!! It's new technology that is still in it's infancy, not reused worn out milked tech. Wait till Intel comes out with new technology... Watch that shit storm that's going to take place.
So, excuses I've heard about Ryzen 2 not reaching stock speeds now.

It's new tech!
Boost is close enough!
User errorrrrrrrrr
Moon phases
<insert Intel product that sucks, or may potentially suck here>
Moar fans
Dark matter
hAvE yOu uPdAtEd uR bIoS?
"cutting edge"
what difference, at this point, does it make?
BLENDER!
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
8,826
So, excuses I've heard about Ryzen 2 not reaching stock speeds now.

It's new tech!
Boost is close enough!
User errorrrrrrrrr
Moon phases
<insert Intel product that sucks, or may potentially suck here>
Moar fans
Dark matter
hAvE yOu uPdAtEd uR bIoS?
"cutting edge"
what difference, at this point, does it make?
BLENDER!
It's ok. Calm down. Why not wait and see if a BIOS update can fix it.
You can still say that Intel is a bit faster still which should make you happy.
 

pillagenburn

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
1,082
Anyone unhappy with their Ryzen 3000 series CPU should immediately return it for a full refund and purchase a comparable Intel product immediately.

...................Instead of filing a class-action lawsuit.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,852
meh, my max boost is around 4575 as of now. Either way I am running all core OC at 4350 with 1.31v and memory at 3733 with below 65ns latency. While everyone has the right to bitch, I am not complaining since it blows away anything intel has at that price point. So AMD has given me a great bang for buck, I am okay with losing 25mhz on max boost for now, I am pretty sure future bioses will do just fine as the platform matures.

Feel free to return your processors event though it doesn't make shit of a difference as you are getting the same performance as the reviews. if single core boost is what you are after on a 12 core beast all power to you.
 
Top