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

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

It's not obviously wrong nor is anything here been false. That's my issue,

Of course it isn't obvious to you, that's my point.  The people who will feel mislead and want to take up a lawsuit are not people like you and me.

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

you are using a bug to say that there has been false advertising and that it's an issue that is getting worse.

No, my point is that false advertising lawsuits in the tech industry are getting more common and I gave you several examples of that.  I never said this is specifically is the cause nor did I say any bug was the problem.  I clearly said that adverting (like what is on the AMD box) would in my opinion lead to more cases of false advertising based on the observation that it is already happening in the industry with With NVIDIA's 970, AMD's 8 or 4 core etc. 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

 

You are trying to nail my comments down to specific condition, but in doing so you are ignoring the message.  I have already said why historical practice on what constitutes a boost condition is meaningless. And I have said multiple times this is not an AMD specific thing and I agree Intel might well be just as guilty (I haven't gone looking for examples from them). 

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

You think people of today aren't more aware of excessive sugar and salt in their diet?  Or about processed foods?  It is an observable fact that false advertising is on the increase in the food industry and it looks like the tech industry is following suit.

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

You are still looking at this through the eyes of someone well informed.  The extra stipulation may not help them understand the tech, but what it does do is indemnify the company from misleading claims because they have clearly indicated there are caveats to the spec.  We had this exact same debate in the last thread on the same topic.  You can't assume consumers have an intrinsic knowledge of a product anymore than you can assume they don't.  Any statement regarding a product has to stand on it's own merits, no caveat means it is true without question, a caveat means their are conditions to the claim.  If the consumer doesn't understand those caveats then that is a different issue, but not having that caveat denies the consumer any chance of understanding the specifics of said claim.  Just saying a device has 6 cores and can boost to 4,2Ghz will indicate to the average consumer that all 6 cores will operate at that frequency.  This is something you cannot pretend won't happen (it may not happen for the average enthusiast, but it will happen for soccer mums). 

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

 

Again you have completely ignored what I said, this is not about people building there own systems, it's about people who are listening to the marketing from Intel and AMD directly then buying laptops and prebuilts based on those claims.    Remember I said this:

 

14 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.

 

 

Do you deny that Intel have been advertising direct to the average laptop consumer in the last 5 years? do you deny that that advertising has an effect on their purchasing behavior?   OF course it does, and that is where these companies are going to have to watch there step, because loose claims regarding boost will be misleading just like 8 cores was, just like the 970 was considered to be.

 

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

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).

It doesn't have to,  If they claim all processors are purple and the consumer looks in the case and sees their's is red it's false advertising, performance is moot. 

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

They don;t have to put all the information on the box, they simply need to put a caveat on it and tell them where to get the information from, just like all insurance companies have to point people the PDS, they don't have to list all the conditions, just show consumers where to get that information before purchasing.   

 

Man people accuse me of being black and white and stubborn, but isn't it obvious that that wasn't even an issue raised and that the obvious answer is a common as day footnote like all other advertising uses?

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

 

Who buy laptops not CPUs.

Are you actually reading what I am typing? I addressed that twice now.  People buy laptops based on the marketing from the CPU manufacturers.

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

The whole issue is simply me pointing out that sloppy wording in marketing material can lead to these cases,  as was evidenced in the previous lawsuits I mentioned.

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

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

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

And I addressed that already, neither of these issues are the foundation of my comments,  they are issues with original problems,  But where this conversation has moved to is not reliant on either of these even existing.   My points are that AMD (and Intel et al) have to be more careful nowadays of their marketing material as we are entering a much more generalised tech consumerism.

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

Just because you think it's a non issue doesn't mean there aren't inherent dangers to certain practices.

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

It is false advertising if the ad makes claims that lead to a purchase and those claims don't turn out to be real.   If Intel claim theirs is the most power efficient CPU and someone buys a laptop based on that claim then it turns out the new Ryzen is actually better than that is false advertising.    It sounds like you are trying to dismiss the issue because it is a complex issue with many possibilities.  I am saying that consumer law doesn't care how complex a CPU is, if Intel make a claim theirs is the best and don't caveat that with "under conditions *, ** and *** to be found on our website" then they are guilty of false advertising. Simple as that.  it is not really up for debate in that regard.

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

 

 

Well I listed 5 cases, 4 off them were in the last 3 years and the other was from decades ago.  I am confident to say I see it becoming well and truly more common.

[leadeater]

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Of course it isn't obvious to you, that's my point.  The people who will feel mislead and want to take up a lawsuit are not people like you and me.

20+ years disagrees. Not happened, don't see anything making it more likely too other than people losing their minds and getting outraged for being stupid enough not to ask. If people can go in to Bunnings and ask for help about a building project they are doing, or plumbing, or electrical they can go to a PC store, online forum, product data page, ask someone they know more knowledgeable.

 

It's 100% obvious if you read the provided information.

 

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Well I listed 5 cases, 4 off them were in the last 3 years and the other was from decades ago.  I am confident to say I see it becoming well and truly more common

You may want to recheck your time frames because when a case concludes is not the same as the product issue in question. GTX 970 5 years ago, Buldozer 8 years ago (bullshit case, zero weight), Apple 4-5 years ago, Samsung 3 years.

 

And 5 cases is way, way too small to make the claim you made. Way too few. High profile highly publicized != more happening.

 

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Are you actually reading what I am typing? I addressed that twice now.  People buy laptops based on the marketing from the CPU manufacturers.

You were talking about boost spec on CPU boxes, everyone else is talking about CPUs. Laptops why? Last I checked what's on a CPU box isn't a laptop.

 

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Intel make a claim theirs is the best and don't caveat that with "under conditions *, ** and *** to be found on our website" then they are guilty of false advertising. Simple as that.  it is not really up for debate in that regard.

So you mean like is actually being done?

 

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Man people accuse me of being black and white and stubborn, but isn't it obvious that that wasn't even an issue raised and that the obvious answer is a common as day footnote like all other advertising uses?

It's a black and white issue because it's on the damn product page, read it or don't. Consumer choice. Not an advertising issue.

 

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It is false advertising if the ad makes claims that lead to a purchase and those claims don't turn out to be real.   If Intel claim theirs is the most power efficient CPU and someone buys a laptop based on that claim then it turns out the new Ryzen is actually better than that is false advertising.    It sounds like you are trying to dismiss the issue because it is a complex issue with many possibilities.  I am saying that consumer law doesn't care how complex a CPU is, if Intel make a claim theirs is the best and don't caveat that with "under conditions *, ** and *** to be found on our website" then they are guilty of false advertising. Simple as that.  it is not really up for debate in that regard.

I'm dismissing it because what you said is wrong and is not false advertising. Nothing to do with complexity, Intel can make wonderful ads that can make their products more desirable than AMD and people can aspire to purchase their products and it is NOT false advertising. You're jumping straight to an issue that isn't proven, that advertising could be false or misleading but the resulting outcome from advertising doesn't automatically mean there was false advertising.

 

That's why it is false equivalency. It's just as false as it is for people that prefer to buy certain cars over others that would be better for them, or any number of other products. If someone wishes to have a product with an Intel CPU in it then all the power to them, that doesn't mean they are a victim of false or misleading advertising. All roads do not lead to false advertising, if it were advertising would be illegal.

 

I do not have any interest in talking about theoretical or perceived issues that haven't been proven and even less so in a topic about an actual issue with a product that effected it's ability to attain the product specifications. Boost spec advertising discussion can go somewhere else.

[spartaman64]

On 9/19/2019 at 4:15 PM, 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. 

 

if they do it would have to be an agreement between both of them. if your competitor is advertising single core boosts and you are advertising a lower multicore boost then you are just putting yourself at a disadvantage

[NumLock21]

I'm pretty sure anyone here who buys a cpu and does not run at the speed it says on the box, will be unsatisfied with their purchase. What it says on the box, is what the cpu is suppose to achieve. No amount of technical excuse is going to do anything. 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

20+ years disagrees. Not happened, don't see anything making it more likely too other than people losing their minds and getting outraged for being stupid enough not to ask. If people can go in to Bunnings and ask for help about a building project they are doing, or plumbing, or electrical they can go to a PC store, online forum, product data page, ask someone they know more knowledgeable.

You've done it again, I point out that it isn't about you or me or history, it's about future consumers and sloppy marketing and you keep pointing to the past and talking about people with knowledge.

 

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's 100% obvious if you read the provided information.

What provided information?   I am talking about consumer law,  they only have to make one claim outside of all the information that doesn't point back to appropriate conditions and that's it , that's false advertising.  Just like the bulldozer case hinged entirely on one single sentence out of a whole page because it didn't properly explain mitigating conditions.

 

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You may want to recheck your time frames because when a case concludes is not the same as the product issue in question. GTX 970 5 years ago, Buldozer 8 years ago (bullshit case, zero weight), Apple 4-5 years ago, Samsung 3 years.

And before that?  HDD capacity lawsuits were in the 90's.   It doesn't really matter if we talk about when they conclude or when started, the issues scale over time the same both pointing to an increase in said cases. 

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

And 5 cases is way, way too small to make the claim you made. Way too few. High profile highly publicized != more happening.

If you don't want to accept it is happening because there might have be more happening earlier you don't know about hen fine, but for me if it looks like shit, smells like shit, and tastes like shit, it's likely shit.    Tech is becoming more prominent in everyday life, tech companies are investing more in advertising direct to the consumers, tech is getting much harder to avoid and much more complex in its existence, it only stands to reason that everything else that stems from such conditions will also increase.

 

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You were talking about boost spec on CPU boxes, everyone else is talking about CPUs. Laptops why? Last I checked what's on a CPU box isn't a laptop.

Yes I was,  because it was the most glaring example.  laptops are also the most bought consumer tech device in this line of discussion.

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So you mean like is actually being done?

So you agree it is a thing in marketing but make comments about not being able to list all the conditions on the box?  I don't understand hows you can hold both concepts as meaningful when they are opposite.

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's a black and white issue because it's on the damn product page, read it or don't. Consumer choice. Not an advertising issue.

If the marketing doesn't point to the product page it becomes misleading advertising end of story.

 

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I'm dismissing it because what you said is wrong and is not false advertising. Nothing to do with complexity, Intel can make wonderful ads that can make their products more desirable than AMD and people can aspire to purchase their products and it is NOT false advertising. You're jumping straight to an issue that isn't proven, that advertising could be false or misleading but the resulting outcome from advertising doesn't automatically mean there was false advertising.

 

That's why it is false equivalency. It's just as false as it is for people that prefer to buy certain cars over others that would be better for them, or any number of other products. If someone wishes to have a product with an Intel CPU in it then all the power to them, that doesn't mean they are a victim of false or misleading advertising. All roads do not lead to false advertising, if it were advertising would be illegal.

 

I do not have any interest in talking about theoretical or perceived issues that haven't been proven and even less so in a topic about an actual issue with a product that effected it's ability to attain the product specifications. Boost spec advertising discussion can go somewhere else.

Then what's left to discuss? why keep responding?    I really didn't think the concept was that much of an issue. 

 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

You've done it again, I point out that it isn't about you or me or history, it's about future consumers and sloppy marketing and you keep pointing to the past and talking about people with knowledge.

It isn't sloppy marketing. If you don't want to look up the product specifications (the provided information) then that is on you, not doing so does not create a false advertising situation. And no I'm not talking about people with knowledge, you keep on assuming that. Computers have been around for a very long time, they have been apart of general society for a long time now and all manner of people of all walks of life have been buying computers and boost spec has not been an issue so there is no reason to assume or expect it will be an issue.

 

People here got confused about this issue because Ryzen 3000 CPUs were not reaching the advertised boost frequency, a very real problem. A lot of speculation as to why happened, people analyzed all sorts of things and proposed many reasons as to why. Boost spec definitions got assessed and potentially there might have been a bit of misalignment with what we expect and what is meant and what would be achieved. As it turns out there was a product fault and the products weren't getting the frequencies as advertised not because there was an issue with the marketing or definitions but because of a firmware problem. A fix was released, it was tested and now Ryzen 3000 CPUs are reaching the boost spec.

 

I take issue with trying to create this as a marketing issue and that there is some kind of problem. The reality is people got confused because something was wrong and needed fixing and it wasn't marketing. We can debate how boost spec should be put on CPUs boxes all day but there is no way all the required situational information is going to be able to placed on the box. Boost spec is different across vendors and sometimes between products, how long it will boost for, how many cores, configured TDP etc. This isn't going to fit on the box and the box is not the only source of official information about the product. Neither are buyers in a situation where they can only use the box for information. When buying products sometimes you do have to consult the product specifications, it is not unreasonable to expect this and neither is it widely assumed that this doesn't exist either. People reliant only on the box is very rare. I can find all the required information on the website where I purchase them from with all the listed information like what the boost spec means, as these places embed the product page from the vendor on to their production page.

 

I also take secondary issue with the assumption that the frequencies on the box actually adequately inform the buyer, by themselves they are just a number and a consumer can mislead themselves by not seeking information as to what they mean. How is it that a lower clocked same core count CPU performs better than the higher clocked CPU? The box is never going to explain this.

 

I can point to why people got confused this time and it's not because of what wasn't on the box, or a problem with the definition with a specification. The box isn't an issue because hardly anyone interacts with the box other than to open it after purchasing to get the product inside, it's a bit late to be point at the box for issues when it's already purchased.

 

The box is a red herring.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Just like the bulldozer case hinged entirely on one single sentence out of a whole page because it didn't properly explain mitigating conditions.

That was not on the product box, that was on the product specifications. It's as if people read these and there is a general expectation they exist and is common knowledge that it does. Such a shame there wasn't a note on the box telling them to read it because... wait they did read it and didn't need the box to tell them to, weird. Plus it was an online purchase so the box is moot anyway.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

So you agree it is a thing in marketing but make comments about not being able to list all the conditions on the box?  I don't understand hows you can hold both concepts as meaningful when they are opposite.

It can't be listed on the box because the box is not 20m² in size, and yes I'm being facetious about the required size. Maybe a bit of realism about what can be put on the box should be applied, or needs to be on the box.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

If the marketing doesn't point to the product page it becomes misleading advertising end of story.

And you know what I just noticed, a QR code on the box on the label that you must break to open it that takes you to a product verification page that also directs you to the product specifications. Below it is says 'Scan for more information'.

 

As much as I dislike QR codes like this it's better than what Intel does just directing you to www.intel.com on their box, or on my older 4930k product box saying information about Turbo Boost is contained inside, can't read that without buying it so that's pretty useless.

 

So I guess end of story because there is something on the box that directs them to the product page?

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Then what's left to discuss? why keep responding?    I really didn't think the concept was that much of an issue. 

Because this wasn't an advertising issue because we know it was a firmware issue and it's worth pointing that out because this seems to be ignored. Like it's the actual point of this topic and why it exists.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It isn't sloppy marketing. If you don't want to look up the product specifications (the provided information) then that is on you, not doing so does not create a false advertising situation.

It does of the claim is misleading.  You can't just make a claim and then expect customers to go looking up if its true or not.

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And no I'm not talking about people with knowledge, you keep on assuming that. Computers have been around for a very long time, they have been apart of general society for a long time now and all manner of people of all walks of life have been buying computers and boost spec has not been an issue so there is no reason to assume or expect it will be an issue.

And yet the technical details for most users have historically been limited to the hard drive is the box the keyboard plugs into and memory is how many programs you can install.  Now we have everyday plebs asking for more cores to make their facebook faster and Branded CPU's etc.   

 

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

People here got confused about this issue because Ryzen 3000 CPUs were not reaching the advertised boost frequency, a very real problem. A lot of speculation as to why happened, people analyzed all sorts of things and proposed many reasons as to why. Boost spec definitions got assessed and potentially there might have been a bit of misalignment with what we expect and what is meant and what would be achieved. As it turns out there was a product fault and the products weren't getting the frequencies as advertised not because there was an issue with the marketing or definitions but because of a firmware problem. A fix was released, it was tested and now Ryzen 3000 CPUs are reaching the boost spec.

You are still ignoring what I am saying, I never said people got confused about it because of the marketing.  I am saying people will get confused if they aren't careful with their marketing. I am not saying this incident will result in false advertising suits, I am saying making broad claims in their marketing will lead that way if they aren't careful.

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I take issue with trying to create this as a marketing issue and that there is some kind of problem.

 

I assume you also disagree that the 970 3.5G ram was a marketing issue? and that the reason AMD had the recent class action against them was not because of marketing.  False advertising is 100% a marketing problem, it stems from either intentionally misleading consumers or simply just failing to properly qualify a claim.    It is my opinion that without obvious qualifiers then claims about the attainable freq. of a CPU would be considered false advertising. 

 

I have already shown you how one sentence on a an entire page of qualifiers can land a company in trouble, I don't know why you ignore that and pretend it will never happen when it already has.

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The reality is people got confused because something was wrong and needed fixing and it wasn't marketing. We can debate how boost spec should be put on CPUs boxes all day but there is no way all the required situational information is going to be able to placed on the box. Boost spec is different across vendors and sometimes between products, how long it will boost for, how many cores, configured TDP etc. This isn't going to fit on the box and the box is not the only source of official information about the product.

 

Are you trolling?  this is the second time you have said this after agreeing that:

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

  I am saying that consumer law doesn't care how complex a CPU is, if Intel make a claim theirs is the best and don't caveat that with "under conditions *, ** and *** to be found on our website" then they are guilty of false advertising. Simple as that.  it is not really up for debate in that regard.

So you mean like is actually being done?

 

 

It is already being done that companies  put caveats on their product pointing to a PDS rather than try to print all the information on the box or in the poster. It's a pretty simple deduction hat failing to do so can be false advertising.   No consumer law on the planet will expect a consumer to look up further information if it is not presented as being necessary.

 

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Neither are buyers in a situation where they can only use the box for information. When buying products sometimes you do have to consult the product specifications, it is not unreasonable to expect this and neither is it widely assumed that this doesn't exist either. People reliant only on the box is very rare. I can find all the required information on the website where I purchase them from with all the listed information like what the boost spec means, as these places embed the product page from the vendor on to their production page.

I don't care how rare it is,  the law says a claim is a claim and it doesn't matter where that claim is, if the information can be misleading then it is considered misleading PERIOD.    The existence of other information elsewhere does not stop a misleading statement or claim moot unless it is specifically listed.  

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

I also take secondary issue with the assumption that the frequencies on the box actually adequately inform the buyer, by themselves they are just a number and a consumer can mislead themselves by not seeking information as to what they mean. How is it that a lower clocked same core count CPU performs better than the higher clocked CPU? The box is never going to explain this.

 

C'mon.  the freq. on the box literally means the frequency the CPU is going to operate at.  Adequate information or not doesn't change that fact that it describe s a specific product capability and as such the product has to be able to do it.  If the box doesn't have * with a foot note saying conditions apply see our website for more info, then whatever freq it claims is what the consumer can fairly expect.

 

If it says 12 cores with a 5Ghz boost and nothing else,  then the consumer is fair to expect that all 12 cores will run at 5ghz boost.

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I can point to why people got confused this time and it's not because of what wasn't on the box, or a problem with the definition with a specification. The box isn't an issue because hardly anyone interacts with the box other than to open it after purchasing to get the product inside, it's a bit late to be point at the box for issues when it's already purchased.

 

The box is a red herring.

No, and I have explained why I even talked about the box.  You keep trying to tie what I am saying back to the issue in the thread I have said this already:

 

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

The whole issue is simply me pointing out that sloppy wording in marketing material can lead to these cases,  as was evidenced in the previous lawsuits I mentioned.

And I addressed that already, neither of these issues are the foundation of my comments,  they are issues with original problems,  But where this conversation has moved to is not reliant on either of these even existing.   My points are that AMD (and Intel et al) have to be more careful nowadays of their marketing material as we are entering a much more generalised tech consumerism.

 

This may have stemmed from the conversation regarding AMD not reaching boost clocks, but it is not founded on that.  It is simply me repeating myself a thousand times because when I say false advertising is false advertising and these companies need to be careful when they fail to caveat their claims, you seem to think I am talking specifically  and only about AMD and people who buy CPU's being mislead and starting a class action.

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That was not on the product box, that was on the product specifications. It's as if people read these and there is a general expectation they exist and is common knowledge that it does. Such a shame there wasn't a note on the box telling them to read it because... wait they did read it and didn't need the box to tell them to, weird. Plus it was an online purchase so the box is moot anyway.

 

It can't be listed on the box because the box is not 20m² in size, and yes I'm being facetious about the required size. Maybe a bit of realism about what can be put on the box should be applied, or needs to be on the box.

 

And you know what I just noticed, a QR code on the box on the label that you must break to open it that takes you to a product verification page that also directs you to the product specifications. Below it is says 'Scan for more information'.

 

As much as I dislike QR codes like this it's better than what Intel does just directing you to www.intel.com on their box, or on my older 4930k product box saying information about Turbo Boost is contained inside, can't read that without buying it so that's pretty useless.

 

So I guess end of story because there is something on the box that directs them to the product page?

 

Because this wasn't an advertising issue because we know it was a firmware issue and it's worth pointing that out because this seems to be ignored. Like it's the actual point of this topic and why it exists.

I don't have time to read the rest of this and I am off camping for the next 6 days (and I really need it).  So I will bid this discussion (and forum) fair well and hope someone else reads it and understands what I have been trying to say.

 

I hope you enjoy the rest of the weekend.

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Are you trolling?  this is the second time you have said this after agreeing that:

I agreed they get used when they make performance claims like on press launch events where they state an actual performance claim, then at the bottom of the slide provide all the hardware details and software used by all systems involved. They get used when required.

 

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It is already being done that companies  put caveats on their product pointing to a PDS rather than try to print all the information on the box or in the poster. It's a pretty simple deduction hat failing to do so can be false advertising.   No consumer law on the planet will expect a consumer to look up further information if it is not presented as being necessary.

So the QR code that does this that is on the box?

 

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This may have stemmed from the conversation regarding AMD not reaching boost clocks, but it is not founded on that.  It is simply me repeating myself a thousand times because when I say false advertising is false advertising and these companies need to be careful when they fail to caveat their claims, you seem to think I am talking specifically  and only about AMD and people who buy CPU's being mislead and starting a class action.

You're repeating yourself because the topic is about what the title says and that is what I will talk about, this wasn't a marketing issue so like I said way earlier good luck trying to have a marketing discussion with me when I don't have an interest to do so in this topic.

 

This topic is being used by you to portray marketing is becoming a problem, or is getting worse, I've disagreed with that notion and the only thing you've provided to back it is that is how you have observed it. I don't see a reason to believe it is the case without data to show it, you can feel it's become more of a problem and I can feel it is not. Either could be right but I don't have an interest in proving which it is and you seem to, so I'd like evidence over perceptions. Evidence being statistical data with enough data points to get past error.

 

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If it says 12 cores with a 5Ghz boost and nothing else,  then the consumer is fair to expect that all 12 cores will run at 5ghz boost.

They can assume what ever they like, doesn't make them correct or any less fair to expect them to read the provided information that would tell them what it means.

[NumLock21]

The average Joe and Jane probably won't even care about the clock speed of the CPU, they'll just believe in what they're getting, unless they have techie friend who looks at it and then tells them if the computer they bought is running as advertised. Now the ones that will look at it CPU clock speed are techies, like everyone here in this forum. To have AMD advertised something on their box, yet it does not deliver, and to think it's okay for them do to so, while still defending their excuse, really confused me, as to some of how your minds works around here.

Some will say it's only 25MHz, DEAL WITH IT.

Someone owes you $100, they only pay you back $75, you're out of $25, are you doing to just DEAL WITH IT?

 

If AMD cannot have all CPUs achieve their max boost, for every configuration out there, then don't advertised the max boost clock on their box, it's as simple as that. What they're done right now is false advertising, no amount of defending "max boost clocks are not guarantee" and other excuses is going the help.

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cy7lxj/der8auer_its_worse_than_i_thought_ryzen_3000/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/d5hiso/reaching_for_turbo_aligning_perception_with_amds/

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

The average Joe and Jane probably won't even care about the clock speed of the CPU, they'll just believe in what they're getting, unless they have techie friend who looks at it and then tells them if the computer they bought is running as advertised. Now the ones that will look at it CPU clock speed are techies, like everyone here in this forum. To have AMD advertised something on their box, yet it does not deliver, and to think it's okay for them do to so, while still defending their excuse, really confused me, as to some of how your minds works around here.

Some will say it's only 25MHz, DEAL WITH IT.

Someone owes you $100, they only pay you back $75, you're out of $25, are you doing to just DEAL WITH IT?

So in case this is in some way directed at me I'll have to note I have said exactly the same thing. What I didn't like is this being yet another 'something is wrong with marketing' again. Sure it could of been, but we know it was a firmware bug. I don't any more agree that boost spec should be completely a maybe or luck, and if you're providing a stock cooler then it must be able to reach it using that.

 

And it wasn't even just 25MHz that was a problem, the behavior of the boost was off a fair bit so when ABBA was tested there were a few games where the performance picked up significantly, far more than 25MHz/50MHz could account for. If nobody had noticed and complained then it wouldn't have gotten fixed.

 

5 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

If AMD cannot have all CPUs achieve their max boost, for every configuration out there, then don't advertised the max boost clock on their box, it's as simple as that. What they're done right now is false advertising, no amount of defending "max boost clocks are not guarantee" and other excuses is going the help.

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cy7lxj/der8auer_its_worse_than_i_thought_ryzen_3000/

These posts, der8bauer's video were all made before ABBA which was made to fix the issue raised by these. From all the reviewers that have subsequently tested ABBA CPUs that were not reaching the boost spec now are. Unless you have a new data source that shows it's still a problem I don't see how you can call it false advertising, what are you basing that from? What they have done right now is fixed the problem, unless they haven't?

 

I don't really have much interest in the Anadtech article but that really should only relate to how the all core boost works, single core boost should hit what it's supposed to even if it's time limited like Intel's boost. I don't see any problem with making the boost spec like Nvidia GPUs boost either, everyone in the know knows all the GPUs will readily boost higher, don't think anyone is complaining about getting 2025MHz boost instead of 1850Mhz etc.