Necrotic

So I haven't been in the loop for the latest news when it comes to laptop's but I just got a request from a friend. He is an older gentlemen (70+) that is a photographer and now is also having to do video editing. He didn't provide any clear definition of what he needs, other than to be around the budget to edit drone footage. I know pricing has been a mess due to silicone and now even memory shortages, but is this reasonable? Also I have very little knowledge in terms of actual needs for video editing and encoding, how much ram, storage and GPU is recommended would be appreciated. Budget: ~$2k USD Needs/wants I think may be applicable: - Not be a Mac (I was a bit surprised, seems he has always been a windows guy and never got into Mac). - Larger screen (17" I would think is preferred due to his age but I might advise to buy a separate screen as well, beyond his current budget). - Memory: 32GB? (I assume this is the norm for video editing now? any idea?) - Storage: ssd/nvme 1TB+? (I would think some fast ssd or nvme storage is a must with enough space to handle his projects) - CPU/GPU: Whatever he can get, something balanced of course but with enough juice to be able to do the editing and encoding reliably. - A mainstream/business vendor that may have better support if something goes wrong is preferred. Originally I thought of maybe a Lenovo but haven't looked too deeply into it. This is only a side benefit, not a real requirement.

1) ....that are published industry standards (think ISO/IEC/ANSI) that highlight the conditions (most of which are very reasonable, usually 25C, sea level, etc). I see no AMD or industrial published standard. 2) When car companies list horsepower or torque they will also list additional information as to when (ie a certain RPM). 3) The conditions are based on a stock car, otherwise they could claim twice the horsepower and simply say "well if you add a turbo you can get that hp". In the same way, you can't claim that AMD would require additional cooling than their stock cooler to reach those max boost clocks (yet in any case, many of the people with additional cooling also can't reach those higher boosts, so it isn't cooling limited apparently).

I don't think they are, they got caught out of position and are having to sink a bundle of money to try to catch up. At this pace they will basically bypass their 10nm and go right for their 7nm process. Though I suspect the EUV technology being developed for their 10nm process will eventually help them on 7nm (which aparently uses more traditional technology) and beyond...but that doesn't help them right now though.

As DeBauer said, he still recommends it. The point is that we shouldn't encourage misleading advertising. If you are going to promote something, it has to be within reasonable conditions and could be reproduced, otherwise why not just advertise liquid nitrogen boost clocks? or a number that works at least thru Post? PS. Your argument on the car defeats your purpose, as you stated they provided a condition ("8000RPM" and it probably shows a standardized ISO testing scenario which controls for temperature and pressure). If AMD wants to say "Max boost clock of X Ghz with X470 and liquid cooling" then sure, it has a reasonable stated condition, but they didn't... Except in this case the one advertising MOAR BIG NUMBAS! is.... AMD. Ignoring anything you don't agree with by claiming they are an intel fanboy just shows that you are an AMD fanboy.... Although not perfect, it can't just be ignored. Before this it was isolated to specific reviewers seeing things that didn't make sense but it could easily just be their samples. Now you have evidence of thousands of people, with different equipment, of which half or more are unable to reach the boost clock. This shows that more work needs to be done but there is strong indication of an issue here (though in the view of many, a minor one at that). I don't understand what you argue about the boost clock as part of my definition making anything illegal. As far as I know, Intel for the most part can reach the boost clock on a single core and AMD could easily as well. If they had set the advertised max boost clock maybe 100mhz less, they would have reached it. Do they need to reach 100%? no, I think statistically that is impossible, but I think ~90% of customers is a reasonable number (a little less than 2 sigma).

If you look at the start of the video he discusses this, including the fact that his average viewer isn't a newbie or the fact that boost limitation isn't tied to specific cheaper boards. You also can't claim that "listed a given boost, not what users need to achieve it" as in legal terms that doesn't reasonably stand, its called false advertising and its illegal. When you promote something in marketing its something that has to be reasonably understood by the population, you can't just say that you have a different definition. Please see the bulldozer settlement if you want to see an example of that. What will let them off the hook is that they probably say "up to" or "max" which doesn't necessarily guarantee it. No, this hasn't been a issue before. They test all the CPU's, they just need to put a more reasonable/consistent max boost on "standard" equipment (ie their fan). Please see the video, this was tested on single core, not multi core...and on an application and monitoring program recommended by AMD. Please see my previous comments. There is also no reliable consistency between motherboards and bios versions that lead to the issues, which highlight that it seem to be a chip issue.

I also suspect that all the marketing probably says "...up to XXX Ghz" giving themselves some room.

This is probably a complicated answer. Perhaps they didn't have the right data of production lot performance at the time they decided the marketing issues. Alternatively, between Intel's traditional higher clock speeds and trying to make 3000 series look better than their own 2000 series and make a big splash, they may have simply over-committed on the marketing aspects of boost clocks.

Although this doesn't change the overall value of Ryzen 3000 in my view and its more relevant on the higher chips (3900X in particular), one should be aware what you are buying. Up to this point the "boosts up to XXX" has been a fairly reliable numbers, but AMD is changing the equation here by not consistently reaching it and it seems unlikely that changes will be made (in bios and such) to correct it due to risk of chip failures in the field. Source: Update: AMD has released a statement on twitter: "AMD is pleased with the strong momentum of 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen ™ processors in the PC enthusiast and gaming communities. 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 identified the feedback from our customers and have identified it as having an impact on our firmware. 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 want to provide an update on September 10 to the community regarding the availability of the BIOS." https://twitter.com/AMDRyzen/status/1168901636162539536

Not exactly sure if this matches what you are seeing but DerBauer just looked into single core performance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgSoZAdk_E8