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

[NumLock21]

6 hours ago, 5x5 said:

Nothing of the sort. Both Intel and AMD have a pamphlet with explanation to what turbo on that system is and how it behaves. Nobody is responsible for people not reading and assuming Dreamland is real

Most after reading that article will understand how AMD Turbo works, but are they going to accept their boost clock is way lower than what's advertised on the box. I would say the majority of the buyers will not be satisfied with it. If anyone thinks it's okay for AMD to do this, then they have the very right to screw you, and get away with it.

 

@porina

Might want to create a separate topic on that Anandtech article explaining how AMD Turbo works because it felt like, it not getting too much attention on it.

[porina]

30 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

 

@porina

Might want to create a separate topic on that Anandtech article explaining how AMD Turbo works because it felt like, it not getting too much attention on it.

If anyone else fancies doing it, go ahead. I've only got a limited attention span and that isn't likely to make the cut any time soon. I still haven't done half the testing I wanted to do to Zen 2 since it launched, and that's over a couple months ago... at least bios is better now.

[5x5]

2 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

Most after reading that article will understand how AMD Turbo works, but are they going to accept their boost clock is way lower than what's advertised on the box. I would say the majority of the buyers will not be satisfied with it. If anyone thinks it's okay for AMD to do this, then they have the very right to screw you, and get away with it.

 

@porina

Might want to create a separate topic on that Anandtech article explaining how AMD Turbo works because it felt like, it not getting too much attention on it.

Way lower - "25MHz". 

 

Sure. Making mountains out of molehills

[NumLock21]

15 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Way lower - "25MHz". 

 

Sure. Making mountains out of molehills

 

Quote

AMD acknowledged that they had found a bug in their firmware that was reducing the maximum boost frequency of their CPUs by 25-50 MHz. If we take Roman’s data survey, adding 50 MHz to every value would push all the averages and modal values for each CPU above the turbo frequency. It wouldn’t necessarily help the users who were reporting 200-300 MHz lower frequencies

 

[5x5]

6 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

 

 

Those users might be running on an A320 board for all you know. Most people who are running B450, X370 and etc are fine. 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, 5x5 said:

Those users might be running on an A320 board for all you know. Most people who are running B450, X370 and etc are fine. 

It doesn't matter, if a consumer is getting less than advertised then that is a problem.  Because it does not stipulate on the box you have to be using a specific motherboard or hardware to attain said freq.

 

Now I have a 3600 and don't really give a fuck because I did more than just read the advertising material,  but if someone else bought one based on AMD marketing only and were not getting the advertised multi core load freq (the multi-core reason everyone tells you to buy a ryzen over Intel) then I would not blame them for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[spartaman64]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It doesn't matter, if a consumer is getting less than advertised then that is a problem.  Because it does not stipulate on the box you have to be using a specific motherboard or hardware to attain said freq.

 

Now I have a 3600 and don't really give a fuck because I did more than just read the advertising material,  but if someone else bought one based on AMD marketing only and were not getting the advertised multi core load freq (the multi-core reason everyone tells you to buy a ryzen over Intel) then I would not blame them for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

if i run a rtx 2080 ti with a 300w power supply and it blows up its obviously nvidia's fault because they dont advertise that their gpus will blow up

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

but if someone else bought one based on AMD marketing only and were not getting the advertised multi core load freq

Uh? There is no advertised multi core frequency. Wasn't one for Ryzen 1000 or 2000 either. Neither does Intel advertise one too. Plus the simple solution to A320 if the majority have bad VRMs is to just not have them on the supported list and have no AGESA release that lets the CPUs work in them, but people would complain about that too heh.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Uh? There is no advertised multi core frequency. Wans't one for Ryzen 1000 or 2000 either. Neither does Intel advertise one too. Plus the simple solution to A320 if the majority have bad VRMs is to just not have them on the supported list and have no AGESA release that lets the CPUs work in them, but people would complain about that too heh.

If there is no advertised multicore freq, then it is implied by the lack of caveats and by the claims of core count that all cores hit the boost freq.

 

If the only thing the box (or marketing)  is 6 cores with a X base and Y boost clock. then that adds further weight to the issue.

 

If the above article is true for all product then Intel cover their arse in this instance by labeling the boost freq as the freq, that all cores hit, not just the highest on core might.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

If there is no advertised multicore freq, then it is implied by the lack of caveats and by the claims of core count that all cores hit the boost freq.

 

If the only thing the box (or marketing)  is 6 cores with a X base and Y boost clock. then that adds further weight to the issue.

I have no idea what you are trying to show but there's never been an all core frequency advertised on any processor in the last 15 odd years. So? Boost spec is either single core or 2 cores. No caveats required for something that has been the set standard forever, you'd have to caveat if it were all cores because that is not the normal expectation.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I have no idea what you are trying to show but there's never been an all core frequency advertised on any processor in the last 15 odd years. So? Boost spec is either single core or 2 cores. No caveats required for something that has been the set standard forever, you'd have to caveat if it were all cores because that is not the normal expectation.

I have never really thought about it because I just by the best I can afford and i don't over clock, but now it has been raised I can see where there would be an issue for those who don't think like me or understand the history of it. 

 

Also, when you point out it has been this way for 15 years that just means the judge will say you have been ripping off consumers for 15 years.  If you say to a cop  "but I always do this" they'll respond with "repeat offender then?".

[5x5]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It doesn't matter, if a consumer is getting less than advertised then that is a problem.  Because it does not stipulate on the box you have to be using a specific motherboard or hardware to attain said freq.

 

Now I have a 3600 and don't really give a fuck because I did more than just read the advertising material,  but if someone else bought one based on AMD marketing only and were not getting the advertised multi core load freq (the multi-core reason everyone tells you to buy a ryzen over Intel) then I would not blame them for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if I buy a 9900K and run it on an H310 board and it sits at base clock, I get to scream at Intel? No.this isn't the case. Boost is not guaranteed - no OEM guarantees it. It is written in multiple locations that boost depends on power, thermal and voltage headroom. The only thing you are guaranteed is base clock.

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

So if I buy a 9900K and run it on an H310 board and it sits at base clock, I get to scream at Intel? No.this isn't the case. Boost is not guaranteed - no OEM guarantees it. It is written in multiple locations that boost depends on power, thermal and voltage headroom. The only thing you are guaranteed is base clock.

It might be time for everyone to tighten up the way they market their products.

 

 

Where things are written and how things are advertised are heavily dependent on consumer position as to how they fair under consumer law.  also not sure what this has to do with OEM's. They don't have any control over what Intel or AMD market their processors as capable of.

 

EDIT: Also, if that article has any truth to it, it doesn't matter if you have good hardware or not, the ryzens may/will never hit the advertised boost on all cores (something they don't clearly stipulate).  I don't know if Intel have ever done that or if it is just a recent thing,  either way it seems another example of creative marketing becoming a a little to close to the false end of the scale given the debate 25mhz has created. 

 

[5x5]

39 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It might be time for everyone to tighten up the way they market their products.

 

 

Where things are written and how things are advertised are heavily dependent on consumer position as to how they fair under consumer law.  also not sure what this has to do with OEM's. They don't have any control over what Intel or AMD market their processors as capable of.

 

EDIT: Also, if that article has any truth to it, it doesn't matter if you have good hardware or not, the ryzens may/will never hit the advertised boost on all cores (something they don't clearly stipulate).  I don't know if Intel have ever done that or if it is just a recent thing,  either way it seems another example of creative marketing becoming a a little to close to the false end of the scale given the debate 25mhz has created. 

 

Both Intel and AMD market single-core boost currently. Multi-core boost is found in the documentation provided one is persistent enough to bore themselves to death with it

[leadeater]

51 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I have never really thought about it because I just by the best I can afford and i don't over clock, but now it has been raised I can see where there would be an issue for those who don't think like me or understand the history of it. 

 

Also, when you point out it has been this way for 15 years that just means the judge will say you have been ripping off consumers for 15 years.  If you say to a cop  "but I always do this" they'll respond with "repeat offender then?".

They wouldn't because it would never make it to court, it's never made it there for Intel who set the standard and everyone is so willing to apply the same expectations for Intel products on to AMD products, even out of spec operation like MCE. For these people that have those expectations I reserve my right to correctly call them a bit foolish for doing so and nothing needs to be done to help them.

 

But the topical issue here is that AMD Zen2 CPUs are not reaching their advertised single core boost, which is a problem. Like for the mentioned A320 it should still work on that or be not supported at all. I can understand all core being lower on A320 boards compared to higher end ones, due to VRM, but it should be at base for all cores or better and the single core should reach advertised, because there should be no VRM that is bad enough to cause that for a single core load.

 

As earlier the Ryzen 2000 way was much better for everyone, PB2 clocks were conservative and everything could do it and XFR2 advertised no frequencies at all and stipulated it is possible to get more. Ryzen 3000 is now equivalent to Ryzen 2000 XFR2 but with a specified frequency that you might be able to achieve, might. That's not at all a good way.

[NumLock21]

Intel does not mention turbo clocks on their box, but AMD does. I cannot find a clear 3700X, found a 3600. I see 4.2GHz max turbo on the box, then I expect 4.2GHz max turbo.

As for the turbo clocks, Intel states only for single core, not multi. I don't know if that max boost on AMD is for single core or multi-core.

 

[leadeater]

22 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

I don't know if that max boost on AMD is for single core or multi-core.

It's single and AMD has said it's single in the form of press events during launch, reviewer guides, etc. From memory I think the i info card on the AMD website that explains what the boost relates to was added later, around the time this topic was posted or at least around the time of this story and the AMD response to it.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, 5x5 said:

Both Intel and AMD market single-core boost currently. Multi-core boost is found in the documentation provided one is persistent enough to bore themselves to death with it

You shouldn't have to go looking for it though, that is why false advertising cases are what they are, no company can hide pertinent information in fine print buried somewhere on the webpage or in documents you have to download (this is why MS got in trouble with the EU and the Dutch).  If the box doesn't point to a caveat then there is no caveat.  If this is starting to become an issue then i dare say it is because the actual processor is now become a mainstream product that non tech literate people are starting to need to rely on.  In the past the IT department ordered the laptop/desktop, the device was on a list or similar, now people are buying laptops for themselves in larger numbers and becoming subject to the marketing a lot more. 20 years ago you either bought a pre-built and took the OEM's word for it or you knew what you wanted and built it yourself, now due to marketing from Intel and AMD there are plebs with no clues walking into shops demanding laptops with Intel processors (even if they are spec'd worse than the AMD equivalents.  That is why I think it is becoming more necessary that ambiguity on the box and in marketing be stomped out and why I think these companies will start facing more lawsuits and false advertising charges. The 8 core 4 core debacle is a classic example of that.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

They wouldn't because it would never make it to court, it's never made it there for Intel who set the standard and everyone is so willing to apply the same expectations for Intel products on to AMD products, even out of spec operation like MCE. For these people that have those expectations I reserve my right to correctly call them a bit foolish for doing so and nothing needs to be done to help them.

 

But the topical issue here is that AMD Zen2 CPUs are not reaching their advertised single core boost, which is a problem. Like for the mentioned A320 it should still work on that or be not supported at all. I can understand all core being lower on A320 boards compared to higher end ones, due to VRM, but it should be at base for all cores or better and the single core should reach advertised, because there should be no VRM that is bad enough to cause that for a single core load.

 

As earlier the Ryzen 2000 way was much better for everyone, PB2 clocks were conservative and everything could do it and XFR2 advertised no frequencies at all and stipulated it is possible to get more. Ryzen 3000 is now equivalent to Ryzen 2000 XFR2 but with a specified frequency that you might be able to achieve, might. That's not at all a good way.

So it's technically they did, most of us don;t see why it's a big deal historically but the future is getting way more competative and it looks like AMD are starting to embellish clock speeds.

 

 

47 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's single and AMD has said it's single in the form of press events during launch, reviewer guides, etc. From memory I think the i info card on the AMD website that explains what the boost relates to was added later, around the time this topic was posted or at least around the time of this story and the AMD response to it.

And updating definitions after the fact doesn't help their cause.   If people are buying laptops based on CPU specs (and they are, we have already seen it in the mobile world where the specs on the card beside the phone only tell you its a quad or octa core at X ghz and not the brand or technical specs and when people are asking for products with Intel only (because of marketing)), then those specs are going to have to be a lot more accurate (in terms of proper caveats/footnotes) if they wish to avoid future legal action.

 

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

You shouldn't have to go looking for it though, that is why false advertising cases are what they are, no company can hide pertinent information in fine print buried somewhere on the webpage or in documents you have to download (this is why MS got in trouble with the EU and the Dutch).

It's not buried, when it was first made a thing it was explained then, it's also explained now and every other time. We don't have to explain fire is hot and just because time has passed and people may have forgotten, fire is still hot and if you are the type of person that forgets that then well, your problem and you might get burnt.

 

And it's not starting to become an issue, boost has and is still single core. End of until someone wants to change it and that isn't now nor has it been tried. There is no confusion, anyone confused is literally ignoring how things have worked forever and make stuff up themselves or listening to non official incorrect sources and the solution to that is point out it's wrong and then all move along. Edit: Because spoiler alert people ignore what's on the box and listen to these wrong information sources.

[leadeater]

49 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So it's technically they did, most of us don;t see why it's a big deal historically but the future is getting way more competative and it looks like AMD are starting to embellish clock speeds.

Yes because only AMD should be on the cards for someone else using inferior VRMs or bad cooling design outside of their control, MacBook Pros should cause issues for Intel just the same because they are similarly unable to reach boost spec during usage that people actually use the devices for.

 

Screwing up and releasing bad firmware that effects clocks is one thing, being liable for someone else's bad designs and implementations is entirely another. It is however completely reasonable to expect an AMD CPU to achieve boost clocks with an AMD provided stock cooler, no boost spec should require high end cooling or an AIO etc.

 

What I cannot find however is a test of ABBA that I know for certain is using the stock cooler, reviewers have confirmed ABBA fixes the clock issue and CPUs do reach the specified boost I just don't know if all SKUs can on provided stock coolers.

[mr moose]

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes because only AMD should be on the cards for someone else using inferior VRMs or bad cooling design outside of their control, MacBook Pros should cause issues for Intel just the same because they are similarly unable to reach boost spec during usage that people actually use the devices for.

 

Screwing up and releasing bad firmware that effects clocks is one thing, being liable for someone else's bad designs and implementations is entirely another. It is however completely reasonable to expect an AMD CPU to achieve boost clocks with an AMD provided stock cooler, no boost spec should require high end cooling or an AIO etc.

 

What I cannot find however is a test of ABBA that I know for certain is using the stock cooler, reviewers have confirmed ABBA fixes the clock issue and CPUs do reach the specified boost I just don't know if all SKUs can on provided stock coolers.

 

No one is saying it is an AMD only thing, I certainly haven;t said that in this thread and I certainly have gone out of my way to make it about all tech moving forward.   I blamed apple for not implementing proper cooling for the CPU they used, that one was obvious.  I am not saying AMD should be responsible for poorly written bios or third party hardware, but they at least should be providing clear information regarding the requirements for said boosts.  At least when Intel released something that may not have worked as well on lower end boards they created a new socket and said we don't support the old one, no one can claim they were mislead into buying a CPU that doesn't perform as well because they have older hardware.

 

 

42 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And it's not starting to become an issue,

I am talking about the tech industry in general as more domestic users start buying into the specific marketing from companies like Intel, AMD Samsung etc.  Remember the HDD capacity lawsuits?  something that is very explainable (and was in tech circles) but because of marketing and generic users it went to legal action. also the 8 core 4 core debacle and now there are lawsuits regarding app stores and apple.  It really doesn't matter if we agree with any of these or not, the reality is that tech is getting more complex, the marketing is getting more loose with it's claims and lawsuits will continue to happen over it.

 

42 minutes ago, leadeater said:

boost has and is still single core. End of until someone wants to change it and that isn't now nor has it been tried. There is no confusion, anyone confused is literally ignoring how things have worked forever and make stuff up themselves or listening to non official incorrect sources and the solution to that is point out it's wrong and then all move along. Edit: Because spoiler alert people ignore what's on the box and listen to these wrong information sources.

Or they have listened to the marketing material and read what's on the box.  There is a picture of the AMD box a few posts up, it clearly says 6 cores 12 threads 4.2Ghz max boost and there are zero * or ^{#, T TT} or anything to denote a condition or caveat. It doesn't matter what the website says if the material presented to the consumer only provides information that can be read incorrectly.remember we are not talking about tech enthusiasts who have been into this stuff for the last decade or more, we are talking about soccer mum's and chefs who are being influenced by flashy posters of i9s and ryzen's with big boost claims and little other information that makes sense to them.

 

This is basically the same debate as the 8 core 4 core thing.  The only difference is that there is no case going forward.

 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

something that is very explainable (and was in tech circles) but because of marketing and generic users it went to legal action.

That's still a problem now even in IT, 8TB is actually ~7.3TB err I mean TiB.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

the marketing is getting more loose with it's claims and lawsuits will continue to happen over it.

Yea I don't think so, people getting overly precious about things they don't understand doesn't mean there will be more lawsuits, even that there should. Rule 1, if you don't understand do not assume. Really all I see it completely unnecessary complaining about things that are not a problem or even becoming a problem around marketing. I hear a lot of loud things but loud doesn't make majority. Before we start saying there is a problem or is becoming more of a problem lets first find the data to make conclusions from.

 

If everyone the whole time has been confused about what turbo means and the advertised specs, because the boost spec is advertised on end user products and on product pages and on store pages so it not being on the literal box is negligible to the people that buy just computer parts, then the tech community has itself failed to educate themselves because both Intel and AMD have over multiple generations explained what turbo means. If you go to school and refuse to learn it is not the school that is the issue.

 

This issue right now that is being covered stemmed from a firmware/microcode issue so it is premature to start making claims like marketing is getting more loose. Are you making this judgement based on products that were not operating correctly due to a bug and actually has nothing to do with product marketing? Seems odd to use that to back a marketing issue claim, especially when it can/has been fixed. Marketing isn't the issue here, not yet. When we get another few thousands data submissions from people running ABBA and the majority are not getting the advertised boost then I'll listen to marketing issue points.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

At least when Intel released something that may not have worked as well on lower end boards they created a new socket and said we don't support the old one, no one can claim they were mislead into buying a CPU that doesn't perform as well because they have older hardware.

And we have no information on A320 at all as to whether this is even a problem. Theorizing over a low end chipset doesn't actually mean there is a problem, it was used as an exemplar. Who has actually tested a Ryzen 3000 CPU using ABBA and has shown that this combination is unable to achieve product specifications? I have't seen anything yet.

 

And in regards to A320 within the same generation you could get lower performance due to it's usage over a higher end chipset and board. Intel had the inverse end of the market issue with X299.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Or they have listened to the marketing material and read what's on the box.  There is a picture of the AMD box a few posts up, it clearly says 6 cores 12 threads 4.2Ghz max boost and there are zero * or ^{#, T TT} or anything to denote a condition or caveat. It doesn't matter what the website says if the material presented to the consumer only provides information that can be read incorrectly.remember we are not talking about tech enthusiasts who have been into this stuff for the last decade or more, we are talking about soccer mum's and chefs who are being influenced by flashy posters of i9s and ryzen's with big boost claims and little other information that makes sense to them.

 

This is basically the same debate as the 8 core 4 core thing.  The only difference is that there is no case going forward.

This is still a non issue and is not getting worse. Consumer devices widely used for a long time have had different single core boost and all core etc, phones, laptops. The people you reference do not care, like actually they don't. They ask the sales person in the store, I've never talked to any such person who has actually taken any notice of these posters, no interest to them.

 

These people also buy laptops, the most widely selling computer type right now, not CPUs nor motherboards. Need I illustrate the point with a venn diagram? It'll just be a made up example but I'm sure where you see this is leading, the overlap as in the affected populous is very small. That is the people buying parts, only using the box for information, no prior experience, not willing to check the product page.

 

Prove it's an issue before anything else.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

That's still a problem now even in IT, 8TB is actually ~7.3TB err I mean TiB.

 

Yea I don't think so, people getting overly precious about things they don't understand doesn't mean there will be more lawsuits, even that there should. Rule 1, if you don't understand do not assume. Really all I see it completely unnecessary complaining about things that are not a problem or even becoming a problem around marketing. I hear a lot of loud things but loud doesn't make majority. Before we start saying there is a problem or is becoming more of a problem lets first find the data to make conclusions from.

 

you are trying to argue reason where it may not exist or the where the law does not care for it.  False advertising does not require that something be obviously wrong to be excused, wrong is wrong no matter how pedantic the claim.  The evidence is in the food industry is seeing a huge rise in false advertising lawsuits,  sometimes for obvious stuff and other times not. The only difference between food and technology is that people are much more educated about food, but tech education is on the rise as it becomes more and more intrinsic to everyday living.

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

If everyone the whole time has been confused about what turbo means and the advertised specs, because the boost spec is advertised on end user products and on product pages and on store pages so it not being on the literal box is negligible to the people that buy just computer parts, then the tech community has itself failed to educate themselves because both Intel and AMD have over multiple generations explained what turbo means. If you go to school and refuse to learn it is not the school that is the issue.

Again, you are trying to argue that previous purchasers would not be confused by what they accept as a standard practice,  i am talking about all the everyday people who are only new to technology in this sense.  It has only been in the last few years that we have seen Intel ads on the TV, before that to see a poster up from Intel directly you would have to walk into an actual computer shop. not even the big box stores (where most people buy laptops from) have those posters up.

 

It is the new demographic of consumers who are the ones who will line up for a class action on this sort of stuff, not the people you are talking about.

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

This issue right now that is being covered stemmed from a firmware/microcode issue so it is premature to start making claims like marketing is getting more loose. Are you making this judgement based on products that were not operating correctly due to a bug and actually has nothing to do with product marketing? Seems odd to use that to back a marketing issue claim, especially when it can/has been fixed. Marketing isn't the issue here, not yet. When we get another few thousands data submissions from people running ABBA and the majority are not getting the advertised boost then I'll listen to marketing issue points.

 

I am making this judgment on my observations of the industry over the last few years.  false advertising claims historically have been rare, there was the hdd capacity issue and i can't think of any others,  then over the last 5 years we have had the bulldozer, Nvidia 3.5G, Apple fined for false advertising regarding warranty in Australia,  Samsung done with water proof ratings, Hyundai with HP ratings on their cars (not quite tech but the elements are the same).  I see many new cases more frequently.

 

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

And we have no information on A320 at all as to whether this is even a problem. Theorizing over a low end chipset doesn't actually mean there is a problem, it was used as an exemplar. Who has actually tested a Ryzen 3000 CPU using ABBA and has shown that this combination is unable to achieve product specifications? I have't seen anything yet.

I never said it would have a problem, All I said was if it can't it should be clearly communicated with prospective customers about such limitations (regardless whether that is the responsibility of the AMD or the board maker doesn't mater), because it was raised as an example of people who might have problems reaching boost.

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

And in regards to A320 within the same generation you could get lower performance due to it's usage over a higher end chipset and board. Intel had the inverse end of the market issue with X299.

 

This is still a non issue and is not getting worse. Consumer devices widely used for a long time have had different single core boost and all core etc, phones, laptops. The people you reference do not care, like actually they don't. They ask the sales person in the store, I've never talked to any such person who has actually taken any notice of these posters, no interest to them.

As I pointed out above, false advertising cases in tech are on the rise and most of them the technicality is hotly disputed within the community.  I see no reason why loose marketing claims about boost frequency wouldn't also be considered  in the same light.

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

These people also buy laptops, the most widely selling computer type right now, not CPUs nor motherboards. Need I illustrate the point with a venn diagram? It'll just be a made up example but I'm sure where you see this is leading, the overlap as in the affected populous is very small. That is the people buying parts, only using the box for information, no prior experience, not willing to check the product page.

 

Prove it's an issue before anything else.

 

As I said, when people go to buy laptops now they are looking for and asking for laptops with specific processors in them because that is what the marketing has been doing. I have seen this first hand.  The most classic example of that is the Intel ads with sheldon in them.  Intel is not advertising a laptop, they are advertising that any laptop with their processor is faster, better, etc.  people most certainly are buying based on CPU marketing now.  And that is my whole point, those everyday people who see an Intel buy their next laptop with an Intel product then discover the ad wasn't very accurate will take up a class action.

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

False advertising does not require that something be obviously wrong to be excused

It's not obviously wrong nor is anything here been false. That's my issue, you are using a bug to say that there has been false advertising and that it's an issue that is getting worse. This is very much bad data being analysed to define a problem that isn't there. So if it's not that then you want to bring up boost spec advertising again, in this topic that isn't about that, for something that has been defined and accepted for ages that has not been disputed or confused until seemingly now. It's just as clear as it is on Intel CPUs as it is on AMD CPUs and just as clear now as it was 1, 2, 5 years ago. "If I act like it's an issue then it's an issue", no you show me it's an issue first before I'll treat it as an issue.

 

Where is the false advertising? Also people are definitely not more educated about food, side issue point but I can't agree with that statement based on all the health evidence that exist around food and how much people are unaware.

 

Writing "Single core boost: X" on the box does not adequately inform a buyer more. Not only are these buyers not 'only using the box', this line is so extremely unrealistic I can barely bother to acknowledge it exists, this extra stipulation does not help them. The people buying parts and making computers who don't do even a small amount of research or ask for help is extremely, extremely small. The product page would have been seen, even if only embedded on to the seller website. The consumers that would be in the situation of only buying off the information in front of them at the store are not buying CPUs, they are buying laptops. Now writing the boost as 'Turbo Boost: X' or 'Single Core Boost: X' doesn't actually help them, even though I can agree they wouldn't know what 'Turbo Boost' means. Laptop CPUs have configurable TDP that vendors actually use and the same CPU SKU in two different devices can have the same base and boost spec and perform very differently. And there is no amount of on the box information that is going to explain this situation well enough, it's always going to be confusing to have devices with the same parts in them with the same listed specs (bar TDP which may not be stated on the device) performing significantly differently and I've also not encountered an in store sales assistant understand it either. This really needs improving and it's not on Intel or AMD to do so, this falls on Dell/HP/Lenovo/Acer etc to provide this information and ensure training is provided to those that will sell their products.

 

Further to the issue is that frequency alone does not inform the buyer of performance when comparing across CPU classes (U vs Y) or across CPU vendors (Intel vs AMD).

 

Getting all this information on to CPU boxes that would cover off everything required to inform the consumer fully is a utopia. There really is something to be said about less information is better, at least when it comes to what you put on the CPU box anyway. I'd rather see all specs taken off the box than clumsily try and solve a perceived issue with yet more stuff written on it that will create an actual problem.

 

Nothing annoys me more than making up issues that does not exist, or blowing them further than reality for no reason. I can get behind certain legitimate points in arguments but as soon as someone tries to stretch the argument beyond what the evidence supports then no, not going to agree.

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

i am talking about all the everyday people who are only new to technology in this sense.

Who buy laptops not CPUs.

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

I never said it would have a problem, All I said was if it can't it should be clearly communicated with prospective customers about such limitations (regardless whether that is the responsibility of the AMD or the board maker doesn't mater), because it was raised as an example of people who might have problems reaching boost.

You were portraying it as if it's an issue that did exist, choose your words more clearly next time. This whole discussion has been premised on an issue existing because that is exactly how it has sounded and the topic thread is about an actual real issue. If you have no evidence of an issue or want to put one forward to me now explained clearly then do so otherwise I so no reason to discuss theoretical problems that don't exist.

 

Boost clocks issue: Identified as a bug and fix released.

Boards unable to allow CPUs to run at spec: No evidence thus far.

 

Why bring up non issues, I don't see the point and all it does is introduce confusing information that need not exist. This is absolutely worse than a not well understood boost spec on a box, this is where misinformation starts because it makes people actually believe there might be an issue because people are discussing it.

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

As I said, when people go to buy laptops now they are looking for and asking for laptops with specific processors in them because that is what the marketing has been doing. I have seen this first hand.  The most classic example of that is the Intel ads with sheldon in them.  Intel is not advertising a laptop, they are advertising that any laptop with their processor is faster, better, etc.  people most certainly are buying based on CPU marketing now.  And that is my whole point, those everyday people who see an Intel buy their next laptop with an Intel product then discover the ad wasn't very accurate will take up a class action.

And none of these people are looking at boost specs on the box like I said, none of them are effected by the points you arguing around. The issue you are trying to point to does not intersect these buyers who just want Intel. And Intel has every right to advertise on TV in an effective way that makes people want to buy their products, that is exactly what it's supposed to do. AMD can do the same. Unless these ads are making false claims people wanting Intel CPUs doesn't point to anything other than effective advertising.

 

People being influenced by these ads and potentially not buying the best suited product for them is disappointing but that is not false or misleading advertising at play. Saying it is is false equivalency.

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

As I pointed out above, false advertising cases in tech are on the rise

Is it really? Are you perceiving it as so or is there actually more? Were there more in the last say 10 years than the previous 10 years? Maybe some of the cases having been going on for a very long time and don't actually fit in the time frame you think they do or cases are getting settled close together but the cases themselves span much large time ranges and just happened to conclude close together. Without some kind of data to back this statement why should I believe it is actually the case.

 

[5x5]

Kinda feels like this thread has derailed and is now on the topic of marketing. Furthermore, we are spinning in circles with no real evidence of anything. Boost clock is never guaranteed. Not on Intel, not on AMD, not on Nvidia, not on ARM/Qualcomm/Mediatek and not on Apple A-series. There is always a disclaimer in the EULA that points to thermal, voltage and power factors. If someone is using an officially unsupported board like an A320 and not seeing third gen boost figures, that's their issue, not AMD, Asus or whatever. Doing research is free and easy. It's why I can't blame intel that my old B150 board doesn't support 8/9 gen even tho both are 1151 and people have hacked it together. It's because there is an official disclaimer that can be read. Same with boost and chipsets. People need to stop looking for something to be outaged by and start looking at the world in a slightly more positive way. Doomsaying won't help amyone., Especially when it's based on personal feeling or assumption rather than fact. I propose a motion to close this thread and open one on marketing in General