![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Just because today is the first day they mentioned it does not meant today was the first day they became aware of the issue.That’s an article from today
If they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into acknowledging it because the bad publicity reached a boiling point, that's a lot worse than if they'd gotten out in front of it weeks ago with a statement, instead of just stealth-nerfing AGESA and calling it a day.
It is what it is. 3/4's of the folks who bought one don't know or care about it. 20% are aware of the issue. 3% percent are upset but have no reason to be, 1% are extremely vocal about it but would never notice the extra 125 mhz in real world usage and the other 1% need to have their meds balanced.
Now I know how reviewers feel when they get called anti-x one month and anti-y the next - entertained.
Normally all these folks would receive their spankings and free vacations for a few days. Must be holiday weekend lag.
Maybe it would be less funny if you understood the difference between apples and oranges.
I read hundreds of customer experiences on forums, note the results of dozens of reviewers and read the resulting statements from the manufacturer itself finally acknowledging the issue.
Really? Mine says "4.6Ghz Max Boost, 3.8Ghz Base Clock". Call me cynical, but any time a company uses language like "max" or "up to" I ignore whatever performance metric follows since outside of their testing environment I'm unlikely to see similar results. While I'll agree AMD needs to shut the hell up about potential boost clocks in their advertising, I'm not too upset - I mean I did buy one to replace the 7700K I'm running now.
You like to live dangerously
I wonder if we'll see the max boost crank up when all-core overclocks are active or will it only be when all cores are at base clock and it kicks-in for whatever single thread perf app needs it ? (I don't think that would be games as they peg other cores too).
No different than Intel CPU's needed the hundreds of BIOS updates/software fixes for their vulnerabilities(features). Still more to come.
So you would have no problem if 3950X came out, had great performance, beat every Intel CPU in games, and was marketed as a 6 GHz boosting CPU? How about they advertise it as a 32/64 core CPU? The performance would still be great and the best in the Ryzen 3000 series. Why does it matter how many cores there are in reality?I never said that the issue did not exist for "Some people"...I said that while people are up in arm's over missing a small of boost, they are completely overlooking the fact that the LADT AGESA ND CHIPSET IMPROVED PERFORMANCE VS THE LAUNCH PERFORMANCE.
I am one of those that is missing ~50Mhz of boost , as my CPU was boosting to 4.415Ghz on the launch AGESA code. I now see 4366Mhz, but again, PERFORMANCE has INCREASED despite the clockspeed "loss"..
So yeah, I understand the difference between an apple and an orange. I just don't care since my number of apples has increased since launch week. And the vest thing about it is that they were free!
Almost no one took it as a huge issue, but they took issue with people claiming it was no issue at all. And if it weren't for threads like these, AMD wouldn't have been working on improving the CPU further, so I don't see why they're fighting against it.
A narrative that a large number of CPUs aren't reaching their spec? I hope it did that as it's a fact.
This is the second Ryzen launch AMD had prominent issues that had to be fixed with several quick AGESA updates, not counting the various issues on the GPU front.
I completely agree with you, but that is whataboutism. Both things can be true at the same time.
