Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

DerBauer hardware survey highlights issues with max boost clock on Ryzen 3000 "It's worse than I thought"

Quote

I don't really know what to say, to be honest. The results is much worse than what I expected. Again, keep in mind what I said at the beginning, [in regards] to being a public survey what can be the negative influence about this but I am pretty sure that I was not wrong, that the CPU's in general cannot hit the boost and probably its just the silicone quality is maybe not good enough. I clearly want to state that I absolutely recommend buying those CPU's...

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

Edited by Necrotic
Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD should have just advertised the clockspeeds as 100Mhz lower. People are happy with the performance which is what matters.

 

What is the point of this? Do they think that they will lose sales because some people don't unerstand that clockspeed is only one factor in performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Humbug said:

AMD should have just advertised the clockspeeds as 100Mhz lower. People are happy with the performance which is what matters.

 

What is the point of this? Do they think that they will lose sales because some people don't unerstand that clockspeed is only one factor in performance.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Humbug said:

What I understand so far is that even though Ryzen has a fairly low TDP and runs cool on a stock cooler, the boost clocks are still dependent on cooling. So if you have good cooling they will boost a bit more.

So AMD should be advertising boost clocks based on averages using the stock cooler, otherwise its a bit misleading if boost clocks aren't consistent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bitter said:

I smell another Bulldozer class action lawsuit. Heck, there was a class action (several actually) about lawn mowers not doing the advertised horsepower.

Unfortunately I think AMD will get away with this because the chips tend to hit the boost frequencies in certain ideal conditions... i.e. particular applications when running with good coolers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blademaster91 said:

So AMD should be advertising boost clocks based on averages using the stock cooler, otherwise its a bit misleading if boost clocks aren't consistent.

absolutely!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Humbug said:

Unfortunately I think AMD will get away with this because the chips tend to hit the boost frequencies in certain conditions... i.e. particular applications when running with good coolers.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bitter said:

I smell another Bulldozer class action lawsuit. Heck, there was a class action (several actually) about lawn mowers not doing the advertised horsepower.

hope not, those are just free money for lawyers and people will get 5$ at most

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

What is scaling and how does it work? Asus PB287Q unboxing! Console alternatives :D Watch Netflix with Kodi on Arch Linux Sharing folders over the internet using SSH Beginner's Guide To LTT (by iamdarkyoshi)

Sauron'stm Product Scores:

Spoiler

Just a list of my personal scores for some products, in no particular order, with brief comments. I just got the idea to do them so they aren't many for now :)

Don't take these as complete reviews or final truths - they are just my personal impressions on products I may or may not have used, summed up in a couple of sentences and a rough score. All scores take into account the unit's price and time of release, heavily so, therefore don't expect absolute performance to be reflected here.

 

-Lenovo Thinkpad X220 - [8/10]

Spoiler

A durable and reliable machine that is relatively lightweight, has all the hardware it needs to never feel sluggish and has a great IPS matte screen. Downsides are mostly due to its age, most notably the screen resolution of 1366x768 and usb 2.0 ports.

 

-Apple Macbook (2015) - [Garbage -/10]

Spoiler

From my perspective, this product has no redeeming factors given its price and the competition. It is underpowered, overpriced, impractical due to its single port and is made redundant even by Apple's own iPad pro line.

 

-OnePlus X - [7/10]

Spoiler

A good phone for the price. It does everything I (and most people) need without being sluggish and has no particularly bad flaws. The lack of recent software updates and relatively barebones feature kit (most notably the lack of 5GHz wifi, biometric sensors and backlight for the capacitive buttons) prevent it from being exceptional.

 

-Microsoft Surface Book 2 - [Garbage - -/10]

Spoiler

Overpriced and rushed, offers nothing notable compared to the competition, doesn't come with an adequate charger despite the premium price. Worse than the Macbook for not even offering the small plus sides of having macOS. Buy a Razer Blade if you want high performance in a (relatively) light package.

 

-Intel Core i7 2600/k - [9/10]

Spoiler

Quite possibly Intel's best product launch ever. It had all the bleeding edge features of the time, it came with a very significant performance improvement over its predecessor and it had a soldered heatspreader, allowing for efficient cooling and great overclocking. Even the "locked" version could be overclocked through the multiplier within (quite reasonable) limits.

 

-Apple iPad Pro - [5/10]

Spoiler

A pretty good product, sunk by its price (plus the extra cost of the physical keyboard and the pencil). Buy it if you don't mind the Apple tax and are looking for a very light office machine with an excellent digitizer. Particularly good for rich students. Bad for cheap tinkerers like myself.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bitter said:

I smell another Bulldozer class action lawsuit. Heck, there was a class action (several actually) about lawn mowers not doing the advertised horsepower.

But no one has an issue with Intel's BS TDP ratings...

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | ASUS Strix X570-E | G.Skill 32GB 3600MHz CL16 | PALIT RTX 3080 10GB GamingPro | Samsung 850 Pro 2TB | Seagate Barracuda 8TB | Sound Blaster AE-9 MUSES

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that everyone uses the same mobo and runs their PC in the same ambient temp, this it outrageous.

Awareness is key. Never enough, even in the face of futility. Speak the truth as if you may never get to say it again. This world is full of ugly. Change it they say. The only way is to reveal the ugly. To change the truth you must first acknowledge it. Never pretend it isn't there. Never bend the knee.

 

Please quote my post in your reply, so that I will be notified and can respond to it. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Humbug said:

What is the point of this? Do they think that they will lose sales because some people don't unerstand that clockspeed is only one factor in performance

The average consumer is, uhh, “not very intelligent.” So yes, that probably could be a real concern at some level. 

Laptop: 2020 13" MacBook Pro i5, 512GB, G7 Graphics, 16GB LPDDR4X | Phone: iPhone 8 Plus 64GB | Wearables: Apple Watch Sport Series 2 | CPU: R5 2600 | Mobo: ASRock B450M Pro4 | RAM: 16GB 2666 | GPU: ASRock RX 5700 8GB | Case: Apple PowerMac G5 | OS: Win 10 | Storage: 480GB PNY SSD & 2TB WD Green HDD | PSU: Corsair CX600M | Display: Dell 27 Gaming Monitor S2719DGF 1440p @155Hz, Dell UZ2215H 21.5" 1080p, ViewSonic VX2450wm-LED 23.6" 1080p | Cooling: Wraith Prism | Keyboard: G610 Orion Cherry MX Brown | Mouse: G303 | Audio: Audio Technica ATH-M50X & Blue Snowball
Link to post
Share on other sites

The survey itself is flawed since people aren't running the same cooling, power delivery and firmware. A lawsuit is not possible. AMD have listed a given boost, not what users need to achieve it. If someone is complaining about getting 100MHz lower on a cheap 45$ B350 board, then that's their problem

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this one's easy. If AMD were careful to say "up to x GHz", they're 100% safe. If they didn't, they need to hire a new marketing manager.

We have a NEW and GLORIOUSER-ER-ER PSU Tier List Now. (dammit @LukeSavenije stop coming up with new ones)

You can check out the old one that gave joy to so many across the land here

 

Computer having a hard time powering on? Troubleshoot it with this guide. (Currently looking for suggestions to update it into the context of <current year> and make it its own thread)

Computer Specs:

Spoiler

Mathresolvermajig: Intel Xeon E3 1240 (Sandy Bridge i7 equivalent)

Chillinmachine: Noctua NH-C14S
Framepainting-inator: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti SC2 Hybrid

Attachcorethingy: Gigabyte H61M-S2V-B3

Infoholdstick: Corsair 2x4GB DDR3 1333

Computerarmor: Silverstone RL06 "Lookalike"

Rememberdoogle: 1TB HDD + 120GB TR150 + 240 SSD Plus + 1TB MX500

AdditionalPylons: Phanteks AMP! 550W (based on Seasonic GX-550)

Letterpad: Rosewill Apollo 9100 (Cherry MX Red)

Buttonrodent: Razer Viper Mini + Huion H430P drawing Tablet

Auralnterface: Sennheiser HD 6xx

Liquidrectangles: LG 27UK850-W 4K HDR

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"up to" is one of the most intentionally misleading marketing phrases that is widely used, not just by AMD. It's a way of looking like you're giving useful information when you're really not, as it could be anything lower.

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

But no one has an issue with Intel's BS TDP ratings...

It has a definition. That a few either choose to ignore it or want it to mean something else, is their problem, not Intel's.

Desktop Gaming system: Asrock Z370 Pro4, i7-8086k, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance Pro RGB 3200 4x16GB, EVGA 2080Ti, NZXT E850 PSU, Cooler Master MasterBox 5, Optane 900p 280GB, Crucial MX200 1TB, Sandisk 960GB, Acer Predator XB241YU 1440p144 G-sync
TV Gaming system: Gigabyte Z490 Elite AC, i7-11700k, Noctua D15, Kingston HyperX RGB 4000@3600 2x8GB, MSI 3070 Gaming Trio X, EVGA Supernova G2L 850W, Corsair 230T, Crucial P1 1TB + MX500 1TB, LG OLED55B9PLA 4k120 G-Sync Compatible
Streaming system: Asus X299 TUF mark 2, i9-7920X, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance LPX RGB 3000 8x8GB, Asus Strix 1080Ti, Corsair HX1000i, GameMax Abyss, Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Crucial BX500 1TB, BenQ XL2411 1080p144 + HP LP2475w 1200p60
Former Main system: Asus Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700k, Noctua D14, G.Skill Ripjaws V 3200 2x8GB, GTX 980Ti FE, Corsair HX750i, In Win 303 NVIDIA, Samsung SM951 512GB, WD Blue 1TB, Acer RT280k 4k60 FreeSync [link]
Gaming laptop: Asus FX503VD, i5-7300HQ, DDR4 2133 2x8GB, GTX 1050, Sandisk 256GB + 480GB SSD [link]


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, porina said:

"up to" is one of the most intentionally misleading marketing phrases that is widely used, not just by AMD. It's a way of looking like you're giving useful information when you're really not, as it could be anything lower.

So the better option is to lock the CPU frequency down to whatever it is rated at and remove any turbo or boost features?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal opinion is that AMD should restrict their boost numbers to what can reasonably be achieved with stock cooling, then clarify higher boost available dependant on cooling solution used.

 

That said, these numbers are so close that I'm not going to hassle them over it.  Also, this is based on an informal, unscientific survey, so I take those results with a grain of salt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD should post 4GHz as boost clock and then everyone would be shitting their pants when CPU would be hitting 4.4GHz... That's kinda like what NVIDIA is doing. Stating absolutely pointless boost clocks and then GPU always goes kilometers past that mark. Coz in this case, AMD's "Max boost clock" makes more sense. It's a number which will NEVER be exceeded by the CPU. Getting as close to it as possible falls down to many factors and none of which are made up by AMD. TDP, temperature, threads used for the workload, all this affects the clock.

 

It's kinda ironic how people always want MOAR CORES, AMD gives them MOAR CORES and then they start bitching it's not running at 4.6GHz at all times. Especially in this time and age when everyone wants everything as multithreaded as possible. Newsflash, you can't put load on all cores and expect them to run at 50GHz. But you'd also want that 105W TDP at the same time. You know, I'd love to break laws of thermodynamics too. Overclocking would be so much easier without these stupid restricting laws. What idiot made them up anyway?

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | ASUS Strix X570-E | G.Skill 32GB 3600MHz CL16 | PALIT RTX 3080 10GB GamingPro | Samsung 850 Pro 2TB | Seagate Barracuda 8TB | Sound Blaster AE-9 MUSES

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

So the better option is to lock the CPU frequency down to whatever it is rated at and remove any turbo or boost features?

Define it in a more meaningful way. Maybe something like "average CPU speed" which will no doubt lead to endless arguments as to what should go into that average. Minimum could be useful in some situations, but we have that already as base clock.

 

With Zen 2, it really feels like AMD went all out pushing the single core turbo so that can advertise higher speeds.

Desktop Gaming system: Asrock Z370 Pro4, i7-8086k, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance Pro RGB 3200 4x16GB, EVGA 2080Ti, NZXT E850 PSU, Cooler Master MasterBox 5, Optane 900p 280GB, Crucial MX200 1TB, Sandisk 960GB, Acer Predator XB241YU 1440p144 G-sync
TV Gaming system: Gigabyte Z490 Elite AC, i7-11700k, Noctua D15, Kingston HyperX RGB 4000@3600 2x8GB, MSI 3070 Gaming Trio X, EVGA Supernova G2L 850W, Corsair 230T, Crucial P1 1TB + MX500 1TB, LG OLED55B9PLA 4k120 G-Sync Compatible
Streaming system: Asus X299 TUF mark 2, i9-7920X, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance LPX RGB 3000 8x8GB, Asus Strix 1080Ti, Corsair HX1000i, GameMax Abyss, Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Crucial BX500 1TB, BenQ XL2411 1080p144 + HP LP2475w 1200p60
Former Main system: Asus Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700k, Noctua D14, G.Skill Ripjaws V 3200 2x8GB, GTX 980Ti FE, Corsair HX750i, In Win 303 NVIDIA, Samsung SM951 512GB, WD Blue 1TB, Acer RT280k 4k60 FreeSync [link]
Gaming laptop: Asus FX503VD, i5-7300HQ, DDR4 2133 2x8GB, GTX 1050, Sandisk 256GB + 480GB SSD [link]


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, porina said:

Define it in a more meaningful way. Maybe something like "average CPU speed" which will no doubt lead to endless arguments as to what should go into that average. Minimum could be useful in some situations, but we have that already as base clock.

 

With Zen 2, it really feels like AMD went all out pushing the single core turbo so that can advertise higher speeds.

They sell the CPU with a specified base clock which all cores on all processors will run at on motherboards built to minimum specifications. The boost clock is dependant on so many factors that the "up to" term is used. If the bare minimum PSU is a 350W and a 350w is used, then it may sag under the extra loading of jacking up the speed and cause instability. The only way they can market guarenteed speeds is to lock the CPU and what you get is what you get.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bitter said:

I smell another Bulldozer class action lawsuit. Heck, there was a class action (several actually) about lawn mowers not doing the advertised horsepower.

AMD will be fine. Every chip can hit the "max boost", emphasis on "max" here. AMD never said you could all-core sustain at that boost, nor did they ever say anything beyond that the chip could hit those clocks. If you load up very specific types of single-core workloads, you'll hit the boost without much issue. Anything that hits AVX you won't see it, however. Plus, a lot of motherboards have less aggressive single-core boost effects in their power tables.

 

Currently, your max boost matters what Motherboard & BIOS you have. Chips will still hit the all-core speeds without much issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eaglerino said:

I have a 3700x and it'll boost to 4.3Ghz but not the advertised 4.4. I just thought it was my cooler not being able to keep up, but I doubt 100mhz would make a difference for what I use it for anyway

It really doesn't effect anything. The core blipping to 4.4 Ghz for a microsecond doesn't change the actual processing capabilities. The longer it can hover at 4.2 Ghz the better off you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 5x5 said:

The survey itself is flawed since people aren't running the same cooling, power delivery and firmware. A lawsuit is not possible. AMD have listed a given boost, not what users need to achieve it. If someone is complaining about getting 100MHz lower on a cheap 45$ B350 board, then that's their problem

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.

1 hour ago, Curious Pineapple said:

So the better option is to lock the CPU frequency down to whatever it is rated at and remove any turbo or boost features?

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).

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

AMD should post 4GHz as boost clock and then everyone would be shitting their pants when CPU would be hitting 4.4GHz... That's kinda like what NVIDIA is doing. Stating absolutely pointless boost clocks and then GPU always goes kilometers past that mark. Coz in this case, AMD's "Max boost clock" makes more sense. It's a number which will NEVER be exceeded by the CPU. Getting as close to it as possible falls down to many factors and none of which are made up by AMD. TDP, temperature, threads used for the workload, all this affects the clock.

 

It's kinda ironic how people always want MOAR CORES, AMD gives them MOAR CORES and then they start bitching it's not running at 4.6GHz at all times. Especially in this time and age when everyone wants everything as multithreaded as possible. Newsflash, you can't put load on all cores and expect them to run at 50GHz. But you'd also want that 105W TDP at the same time. You know, I'd love to break laws of thermodynamics too. Overclocking would be so much easier without these stupid restricting laws. What idiot made them up anyway?

Please see the video, this was tested on single core, not multi core...and on an application and monitoring program recommended by AMD.

8 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

AMD will be fine. Every chip can hit the "max boost", emphasis on "max" here. AMD never said you could all-core sustain at that boost, nor did they ever say anything beyond that the chip could hit those clocks. If you load up very specific types of single-core workloads, you'll hit the boost without much issue. Anything that hits AVX you won't see it, however. Plus, a lot of motherboards have less aggressive single-core boost effects in their power tables.

 

Currently, your max boost matters what Motherboard & BIOS you have. Chips will still hit the all-core speeds without much issue.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×