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

These boost clock shenanigans indicate that [no surprises here] just like Intel, AMD is not beyond reproach in making arguably false marketing claims to persuade you to buy their product. That being said, I think that the "storm in a teacup" idiom is applicable here. The difference between advertised and actual boost clocks is small and the performance delta between them, probably negligible. Imo, 3000 series owners should be happy they bought an outstanding Cpu, at a great price and have no regrets going forward.
 
These boost clock shenanigans indicate that [no surprises here] just like Intel, AMD is not beyond reproach in making arguably false marketing claims to persuade you to buy their product. That being said, I think that the "storm in a teacup" idiom is applicable here. The difference between advertised and actual boost clocks is small and the performance delta between them, probably negligible. Imo, 3000 series owners should be happy they bought an outstanding Cpu, at a great price and have no regrets going forward.

No one is saying that these aren't great chips. No one is denying their performance. As usual, AMD got "overzealous" with their marketing and people take issue with that. Even when the difference isn't huge, people have problems with being lied to. AMD loves to play the "underdog" card and pretend they're so much more consumer friendly than their competition, yet their marketing constantly proves they're not above lying to or misleading customers in order to get attention. The difference is so small that it doesn't matter for performance but AMD were the ones that chose to promise those numbers and were unable to deliver on it. If their marketing put the numbers just 100mhz lower people would be happy to see their chips exceeding the promised number, even if only by a little.
 
No one is saying that these aren't great chips. No one is denying their performance. As usual, AMD got "overzealous" with their marketing and people take issue with that. Even when the difference isn't huge, people have problems with being lied to. AMD loves to play the "underdog" card and pretend they're so much more consumer friendly than their competition, yet their marketing constantly proves they're not above lying to or misleading customers in order to get attention. The difference is so small that it doesn't matter for performance but AMD were the ones that chose to promise those numbers and were unable to deliver on it. If their marketing put the numbers just 100mhz lower people would be happy to see their chips exceeding the promised number, even if only by a little.

Good points, I have no arguments, nor am I attempting to trivialize the concerns of those who feel they may have cheated by AMD marketing.
I think it's problematic, if people allow themselves to be disproportionately affected by "arguably minor deceptions" such as these in today's world
where deceit on a grand scale is so common. I am happier if I try not to sweat the small stuff :)
 
Calm down grandpa.

If I were a millennial I would report you for a super mega offensive personal attack on my gender and for being an age'ist. I'd also sue you for violating my safe space that I am entitled too on the internet.

But none of that will happen because I have hair on my chest and I dont know what soy taste like.
 
If I were a millennial I would report you for a super mega offensive personal attack on my gender and for being an age'ist. I'd also sue you for violating my safe space that I am entitled too on the internet.

But none of that will happen because I have hair on my chest and I dont know what soy taste like.
Do you communicate exclusively in /pol/ tier buzzwords?

What's up with the irrational hatred of younger people anyway? Did someone under 30 cut you off in the line for discounted vegetables or something?
 
Do you communicate exclusively in /pol/ tier buzzwords?

What's up with the irrational hatred of younger people anyway? Did someone under 30 cut you off in the line for discounted vegetables or something?
lol, young people in general aren't "millennials", only people who let themselves be defined by some stupid label. It's not old vs young, it's a mentality sort of thing. Every time someone responds defensively to a "Hurr, Millennials" joke, they feed right into the stereotype.

Anyways, I'd also be curious as to what ambient temps people are running their pcs in. I keep it at 75 (F because 'muricah), but during the winter I like to keep the heating bill a bit lower at 68.
 
While I agree AMD has had marketing boners (just think back to bulldozer) and design issues (think polaris power draw) I don't believe they are anywhere near as malicious in their behavior over the course of their history as either Intel or Nvidia has been. Intel's malice has been well documented for decades and Nvidia as recently as the GPP.

I personally abhor marketing, marketers and sales people. They will lie, cheat and steal to put themseles ahead. A good product will sell itself. I believe Ryzen sells itself on value. I believe Navi sells itself on value. If you want the best of the best buy a 9900k and a 2080 ti and stop your bitching. Can't afford it? Sounds like a you problem, not an AMD problem that you have to "settle" for AMD.
 
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.

I'm in the same boat; I've got the same mobo and it's way too willing to crank up the volts. Stock fan is a dustbuster too but that's on me because I didn't measure the case to see if I could fit a D15. Otherwise, it is a great processor. It's 4.0 all core when compiling Libreoffice (done in 17minutes, I might add) or something just as heavy, 4.2 on fluffier stuff, 4.4 or 4.5 when less than 12 cores.
 
lol, young people in general aren't "millennials", only people who let themselves be defined by some stupid label. It's not old vs young, it's a mentality sort of thing. Every time someone responds defensively to a "Hurr, Millennials" joke, they feed right into the stereotype.

Anyways, I'd also be curious as to what ambient temps people are running their pcs in. I keep it at 75 (F because 'muricah), but during the winter I like to keep the heating bill a bit lower at 68.

If AC is in around 28c
I'm in the same boat; I've got the same mobo and it's way too willing to crank up the volts. Stock fan is a dustbuster too but that's on me because I didn't measure the case to see if I could fit a D15. Otherwise, it is a great processor. It's 4.0 all core when compiling Libreoffice (done in 17minutes, I might add) or something just as heavy, 4.2 on fluffier stuff, 4.4 or 4.5 when less than 12 cores.

You've got to change your thinking about voltage. Not all chips are the same. 1.4v is fine on the 3900x because it's really pulling alot of electrons through its hyper dense 7nm layout. Remember voltage is just a measure of electro motive force. Apparently it takes alot of electromotive force to feed the necessary amount of electrons through the hyper dense 7nm fabric of billions of transistors.

While a 1.2v stable full.load chip would be nice, this no longer works on 7nm.

I'm guessing 5nm or 3nm will require 1.5 or 1.6 volts to run.

These chips are infinitely more complex than chips of old. You add milliona to billions of more transistors as is required to maintain advancing performance the number of electrons necessary to flow through the fabric increases. It's like going from a 4cyl to a 6cyl engine. It requires more fuel.

You either raise the voltage or you add more parallel pathways to bring more electrons in.

Thus you need to change your paradigm of old thinking and expectations.

Anyways my Aorus Master runs my 3900x at wide open at 1.32v and that's set to auto.

Sorry for typos as I'm on my cell with my big hands.
 
If AC is in around 28c


You've got to change your thinking about voltage. Not all chips are the same. 1.4v is fine on the 3900x because it's really pulling alot of electrons through its hyper dense 7nm layout. Remember voltage is just a measure of electro motive force. Apparently it takes alot of electromotive force to feed the necessary amount of electrons through the hyper dense 7nm fabric of billions of transistors.

While a 1.2v stable full.load chip would be nice, this no longer works on 7nm.

I'm guessing 5nm or 3nm will require 1.5 or 1.6 volts to run.

These chips are infinitely more complex than chips of old. You add milliona to billions of more transistors as is required to maintain advancing performance the number of electrons necessary to flow through the fabric increases. It's like going from a 4cyl to a 6cyl engine. It requires more fuel.

You either raise the voltage or you add more parallel pathways to bring more electrons in.

Thus you need to change your paradigm of old thinking and expectations.

Anyways my Aorus Master runs my 3900x at wide open at 1.32v and that's set to auto.

Sorry for typos as I'm in my cell with my big hands.

Yeah, it does seem to be the new way. I'm just used to under-volting as my Skylake laptop would throttle like a bastard until I dropped it down a bunch.
 
lol, young people in general aren't "millennials", only people who let themselves be defined by some stupid label. It's not old vs young, it's a mentality sort of thing. Every time someone responds defensively to a "Hurr, Millennials" joke, they feed right into the stereotype.

Anyways, I'd also be curious as to what ambient temps people are running their pcs in. I keep it at 75 (F because 'muricah), but during the winter I like to keep the heating bill a bit lower at 68.

72-73F here. 68F in the winter time.
 
If I were a millennial I would report you for a super mega offensive personal attack on my gender and for being an age'ist. I'd also sue you for violating my safe space that I am entitled too on the internet.

But none of that will happen because I have hair on my chest and I dont know what soy taste like.

I eat soy.

REPORTED.

Just kidding, Boomer
 
AMD is still going to be my next cpu, no matter how many people cry and try to make it seem bad. I just hope that few mhz less doesn't hurt anything or I might have to find a safe place!
 
AMD is still going to be my next cpu, no matter how many people cry and try to make it seem bad. I just hope that few mhz less doesn't hurt anything or I might have to find a safe place!

It's not a bad chip. I like mine, now that it's performing correctly. It is, however, not what has been advertised by AMD.
 
That’s awesome you guys turned 10%+ less performance into some kind of weird generational thing. I don’t even know how you guys managed that.

So the narative is now you’re a soy boy if you don’t let AMD gape you. Seems kind of backwards?
 
If AC is in around 28c


You've got to change your thinking about voltage. Not all chips are the same. 1.4v is fine on the 3900x because it's really pulling alot of electrons through its hyper dense 7nm layout. Remember voltage is just a measure of electro motive force. Apparently it takes alot of electromotive force to feed the necessary amount of electrons through the hyper dense 7nm fabric of billions of transistors.

While a 1.2v stable full.load chip would be nice, this no longer works on 7nm.

I'm guessing 5nm or 3nm will require 1.5 or 1.6 volts to run.

These chips are infinitely more complex than chips of old. You add milliona to billions of more transistors as is required to maintain advancing performance the number of electrons necessary to flow through the fabric increases. It's like going from a 4cyl to a 6cyl engine. It requires more fuel.

You either raise the voltage or you add more parallel pathways to bring more electrons in.

Thus you need to change your paradigm of old thinking and expectations.

Anyways my Aorus Master runs my 3900x at wide open at 1.32v and that's set to auto.

Sorry for typos as I'm on my cell with my big hands.


Which way is your XSPC block oriented? I have mine with the fitting vertical, so the intake is over the bottom !middle (if looking at the cpu)...I hopefully got it where the intake side is over my single chiplet (I realize your cpu has two )...

for everyone that is complaining, I have a serious question. If AND came out and said that we are aware that a fair number of you are unhappy that you are not seeing your CPU boost to the frequency you are listed as the "Max Boost clock" so in an effort to ensure you get the maxUnum possible performance , we have tweaked the way these revolutionary CPUs work.

the new changes will ensure you get better performance then the initial reviews showed, but you will notice that the CPU will deliver this performance boost while maintaining lower clocks then you may have noticed before.



If AND released a statement saying this, how many of you would still have a legit reason to complain or feel you were slighted?

As someone who was seeing OVER 4.4Ghz clocks on my 3700x with just the wraith prism on 1.0.0.2 AGESA, I am happy with the performance boost I have seen with the 1.0.0.3AAB despite my cpu only hitting 4350-4375 now. I gained a solid improvement in every benchmark, a nd got my b die ram at 3400 14-14-14-28-1t at 3400Mt/s.
 
That’s awesome you guys turned 10%+ less performance into some kind of weird generational thing. I don’t even know how you guys managed that.

So the narative is now you’re a soy boy if you don’t let AMD gape you. Seems kind of backwards?

Is there a verification of 10% less performance? I've gotten the impression that benchmarks are accurate.

Full disclosure I eat a lot of soy as I don't really eat meat.
 
Only just read the first page, as I suspected all the AMD apologists making excuses..

"he doesn't know what he's doing"
"people don't vent their pc's properly" (lol, AMD says it's OK to run hot, show's what you know)
"it wasn't a guarantee..."
"It's the mobo..." (He addressed that in the video)

Hypocrites... if Intel of nVidia had pulled this, they would all be lighting fires. But since it's AMD, it's fine.
 
If I were a millennial I would report you for a super mega offensive personal attack on my gender and for being an age'ist. I'd also sue you for violating my safe space that I am entitled too on the internet.

But none of that will happen because I have hair on my chest and I dont know what soy taste like.

I havent laughed this hard at a comment in a while lol

Back on topic, I just got a 3700x last week and in the little time I've had to play with it its boosted to 4400mhz single core. Without PBO it seemed to be doing 4200 or so all core. 4300 all core manual on my shitty b350 asrock crashes at 1.35v, will be interesting to see what happens with the crosshair vii arrives from a member here.

Coming from a 6850k, theres already a VERY noticeable difference. Does it always boost to 4.4 like the box says? Not really. Not too happy about that, but we'll see what bios updates can do later on. Still, I'm very satisfied so far.
 
Anyways, I'd also be curious as to what ambient temps people are running their pcs in. I keep it at 75 (F because 'muricah), but during the winter I like to keep the heating bill a bit lower at 68.

72-73F here. 68F in the winter time.

Man, you guys would melt in my place, lol.

77 during the day, 75 at night.

68 in the winter, but I may bump it to 70 next winter because natural gas is relatively cheap.
 
Man, you guys would melt in my place, lol.

77 during the day, 75 at night.

68 in the winter, but I may bump it to 70 next winter because natural gas is relatively cheap.

I would spontaneously combust in those temperatures. I would keep it colder if I could. My girlfriend is the one that puts the thermostat at 73F. I'd run it at 70F-71F if I had it my way.
 
Which way is your XSPC block oriented? I have mine with the fitting vertical, so the intake is over the bottom !middle (if looking at the cpu)...I hopefully got it where the intake side is over my single chiplet (I realize your cpu has two )...

for everyone that is complaining, I have a serious question. If AND came out and said that we are aware that a fair number of you are unhappy that you are not seeing your CPU boost to the frequency you are listed as the "Max Boost clock" so in an effort to ensure you get the maxUnum possible performance , we have tweaked the way these revolutionary CPUs work.

the new changes will ensure you get better performance then the initial reviews showed, but you will notice that the CPU will deliver this performance boost while maintaining lower clocks then you may have noticed before.



If AND released a statement saying this, how many of you would still have a legit reason to complain or feel you were slighted?

As someone who was seeing OVER 4.4Ghz clocks on my 3700x with just the wraith prism on 1.0.0.2 AGESA, I am happy with the performance boost I have seen with the 1.0.0.3AAB despite my cpu only hitting 4350-4375 now. I gained a solid improvement in every benchmark, a nd got my b die ram at 3400 14-14-14-28-1t at 3400Mt/s.

I've tried placing the block a few different ways. It seems the temps stat the same regardless. However I bought a brand new Corsair block and it seems to be 2 or 3 c cooler under load. But that might be just oxidative insulation on the xspc where as the corsair is new and clean.

I do have a xspc thread ripper block I want to try but I have to drill mounting holes in it.

I'm thinking the huge Cu mass of the cold plate will wick away heat faster than the am4 model. But in an email xspc said the am4 version will cool am4 better. Apparently they have tried the Thread Ripper block on am4.

If your on Gigabyte x570 there is a F5 bios with 1.0.0.3BB I think is the latest revision. My boards stable right now but I might try it later in my 2nd bios.

Maybe it will allow a little more boost perhaps?
 
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-3000-boost-frequency-bios-fix,40308.html

New bios coming...

“AMD is pleased with the strong momentum of 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen™ processors in the PC enthusiast and gaming communities. We closely monitor community feedback on our products and understand that some 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen users are reporting boost clock speeds below the expected processor boost frequency. While processor boost frequency is dependent on many variables including workload, system design, and cooling solution, we have closely reviewed the feedback from our customers and have identified an issue in our firmware that reduces boost frequency in some situations. We are in the process of preparing a BIOS update for our motherboard partners that addresses that issue and includes additional boost performance optimizations. We will provide an update on September 10 to the community regarding the availability of the BIOS.”
 
Only just read the first page, as I suspected all the AMD apologists making excuses..

"he doesn't know what he's doing"
"people don't vent their pc's properly" (lol, AMD says it's OK to run hot, show's what you know)
"it wasn't a guarantee..."
"It's the mobo..." (He addressed that in the video)

Hypocrites... if Intel of nVidia had pulled this, they would all be lighting fires. But since it's AMD, it's fine.

I've spent the last couple of weeks gathering data on this issue. Essentially, this is what I've observed about Ryzen 3000 series processors since launch and some of the conclusions I've reached.
  • The CPU's the reviewers were sent are very likely cherry picked examples. I've had some hands on with retail CPU's and they aren't as good as the samples I have.
  • Maximum boost clocks since the dawn of boost clocks have never been guaranteed. That said, we are spoiled by the fact that Intel CPU's have been able to hit their boost clocks consistently and that all Intel cores can reach the maximum advertised boost clocks under the right conditions. Even Intel stated that conditions had to be right for the boost clock to occur. Essentially, as long as you can keep it cool your CPU is probably good for an all core overclock that matches the boost clocks.
  • AMD has had a history with the 1000 and 2000 series Ryzens of doing nearly the same thing. A 2nd generation Ryzen CPU that boosts at 4.3GHz can typically hit an all core overclock of 4.2GHz. Each generation has roughly incremented by 100MHz until the 3000 series. Again, had these CPUs come out at 4.4GHz MAX boost and did an all core overclock of 4.3GHz, no one would be complaining and this would have been a reasonable expectation that AMD absolutely can deliver on. However, AMD pushed the clocks upwards of 4.6GHz (4.7GHz on the unreleased 3950X). As a result, when AMD was talking about the clocks before release, people were automatically set up for disappointment because the implication was that people would see 4.6GHz all core or something like that. I remember reading comments to that effect on the forums before launch.
  • AMD processors can and do hit their boost clocks as I've said before. However, getting back to what I said about retail CPU's, this is a bit of a crap shoot. I've seen at least one retail CPU that I couldn't make hit its boost clocks without overclocking the base clock to a point where the system didn't work properly.
  • Boost clock failures are not a result of the clock gen falling short of the 100.00MHz base clock. While this does sort of track as an issue mathematically, in practice this isn't the case. These CPU's actually still fall short of the clocks desired at 100.50MHz and greater speeds. At least in the case of CPU's that seem unable to boost properly to begin with. Many people have pointed out that you can change RAM and get the CPU to boost right and this is actually true in some cases. In others, even this won't help. I've seen at least one retail CPU that wouldn't boost properly on three different motherboards, 5 different BIOS revisions between them, and six different memory kits on each motherboard. Some CPU's will not boost correctly with one combination of hardware, but might with another. This isn't useful to the people who buy this stuff with their own money and don't have six memory kits and three motherboards on hand to work with.
  • Gamer's Nexus points out how the cooling comes into play, and while this may certainly be true, I think people tend to discount this theory as the tools available to them do not show this to be the case. I've seen CPU's not boost right while showing temperatures in the high 50's and 60's. This doesn't tell the user that the reason they can't hit the desired clocks is a temperature issue. Temperature may well be the issue, but if that's the case its spikes that happen faster than the software can capture and the algorithm drops the clocks before there is any chance of an over temperature condition.
I will also agree that there are many people that are giving AMD a pass for this debacle where as if this were Intel or NVIDIA we were talking about, those same people would be first in line with pitch forks and torches. People always seem to treat AMD as the lone underdog fighting the good fight for the people against the evil Intel corporation. These same people absolutely forget that AMD has a history that involves reverse engineering Intel's designs, charging over a grand for it's original FX series processors, and making bad business decisions over a period of decades. Decisions which include cannibalizing itself by selling off profitable divisions to feed its usually under performing CPU market. It was a very prolific flash memory maker before selling that division off to support the company during some of its leaner years when its CPU's were far from competitive.

I also think AMD's getting a pass from several people because of Ryzen 3000's performance and value for the dollar. At the end of the day, despite the boost clocking fiasco and other various issues, we have an alternative to Intel's products which not only provides far better productivity performance than Intel, but gets close enough on the gaming front that AMD's slight losses in benchmarks can be overlooked.
 
What gets me IS a small issue. Some ppl are going overboard with the belly aching.
 
EDjF1zmXYAABTYU.jpg


 
I've spent the last couple of weeks gathering data on this issue. Essentially, this is what I've observed about Ryzen 3000 series processors since launch and some of the conclusions I've reached.

  • Gamer's Nexus points out how the cooling comes into play, and while this may certainly be true, I think people tend to discount this theory as the tools available to them do not show this to be the case. I've seen CPU's not boost right while showing temperatures in the high 50's and 60's. This doesn't tell the user that the reason they can't hit the desired clocks is a temperature issue. Temperature may well be the issue, but if that's the case its spikes that happen faster than the software can capture and the algorithm drops the clocks before there is any chance of an over temperature condition.
.

Thermocouples can report as quickly as 0.12s, FWIW. At this scale though, just how hot does the junction get and how quickly can we honestly expect to transfer it out?
 
Wow not shocked that AMD is will put out a bios that will address the issue, like others had said would likely happen. Hyperbole on this was nuts especially when the OP is pointing out a 25 MHz difference as a big deal. AMD had a couple of bugs they had to iron out first which always gets priority in engineering and then you work on performance.
 
Wow not shocked that AMD is will put out a bios that will address the issue, like others had said would likely happen. Hyperbole on this was nuts especially when the OP is pointing out a 25 MHz difference as a big deal. AMD had a couple of bugs they had to iron out first which always gets priority in engineering and then you work on performance.

It's not hyperbole and the difference isn't 25mhz, that's just one segment that everybody is latching to to use as a best case scenario counter argument to minimize the issue/bug. For my 3700x its 125mhz. More for some unlucky souls esp with the 3900x.

Also, it seems good is coming from it. Silence from amd for almost exactly 2 months followed by a sudden update 48 hours after this story finally broke the mainstream. I'm glad AMD is reacting.

Some of you have only noticed this for 2 days, those of us with the hardware have been spending hours and hours trying to fix it since early july.
 
It's not hyperbole and the difference isn't 25mhz, that's just one segment that everybody is latching to to use as a best case scenario counter argument to minimize the issue/bug. For my 3700x its 125mhz. More for some unlucky souls esp with the 3900x.

Also, it seems good is coming from it. Silence from amd for almost exactly 2 months followed by a sudden update 48 hours after this story finally broke the mainstream. I'm glad AMD is reacting.

Some of you have only noticed this for 2 days, those of us with the hardware have been spending hours and hours trying to fix it since early july.

This. 25mhz is an absolute best case, and considering real boost clocks while doing any sort of actual work will be 100 to 500mhz less than the advertised maximum boost is where some of the frustration is rooted.
 
It's not hyperbole and the difference isn't 25mhz, that's just one segment that everybody is latching to to use as a best case scenario counter argument to minimize the issue/bug. For my 3700x its 125mhz. More for some unlucky souls esp with the 3900x.

Also, it seems good is coming from it. Silence from amd for almost exactly 2 months followed by a sudden update 48 hours after this story finally broke the mainstream. I'm glad AMD is reacting.

Some of you have only noticed this for 2 days, those of us with the hardware have been spending hours and hours trying to fix it since early july.

I've had a 3900X since 2 weeks after launch and whatever bios you decided to run had a huge effect on it. Some had to upgrade to a newer bios to fix a issue that was happening and for some that lowered their single core boost speeds by a little bit all core was rarely affected. It's been obvious for quite sometime it would need a bios tweak to fix it for owners and a few boards have the bios setup right and the chip reaches max boost and sometimes even beyond. ASUS seems to have the biggest issue and is taking the longest to issue bios fixes and a good chunk of people with issues are on ASUS boards. But even other manufactures have boards that work properly and some that dont so it's a bit of a mess. The chips are pretty new and you have to expect minor issues that should get corrected over time, they also have 3 generations of chipsets to troubleshoot as well. You guys seem to have no clue how bad it could be, should have dealt with a VIA chipset and a AMD Athlon processor. Then you would know what a issue looks like and how to have patience for a fix.
 
Wow not shocked that AMD is will put out a bios that will address the issue, like others had said would likely happen. Hyperbole on this was nuts especially when the OP is pointing out a 25 MHz difference as a big deal. AMD had a couple of bugs they had to iron out first which always gets priority in engineering and then you work on performance.
Since it's so unimportant, I'm sure you'll ignore AMD's eventual BIOS fix and not bother applying it if you ever face the issue. Also, not sure which OP you were reading if 25 MHz difference is all you got out of it.

God forbid they get called out on something and it actually results in a benefit for their customers.
 
You guys seem to have no clue how bad it could be, should have dealt with a VIA chipset and a AMD Athlon processor. Then you would know what a issue looks like and how to have patience for a fix.

Just because this isn't on the same level as Soundblaster driver issues on a 486 doesn't mean it's not a problem. My patience for computer hardware to just work as advertised has been molded over several generations of products now. If, at any point, your customer is wondering if they need to RMA what they have because they cannot figure out if it's a problem with the product or just working as designed, the company has failed in one way or another.
 
I find it interesting how bent out of shape people are getting over what is arguably a very minor issue.... How often do you guys even use single core loads other than benchmarks? Stop staring at the clock speeds and use your computers. Stop running benchmarks over and over. Ryzen 3000 is blazing fast even if you are 100mhz short on single thread loads. Personally I'm very satisfied with my 3700x even if it won't hit 4.4 - as if 4375 is really not the same thing. and still really don't see the big deal and why people are obsessing over single threaded peak boost speeds. What workloads even need that extra 100mhz anyways? Everything is multi threaded these days
 
Back
Top