Intel's development of Turbo Boost Max:So calling foul because AMD is being blamed for what is primarily a Windows weakness makes people fanboys??
The comments here are at least very entertaining.
I always get a good chuckle over all the "Fanboy" name calling.
I personally am a Fan of whatever CPU gives me the best performance for the price and meets my needs at the time.
I don't care who made it.
I even built a Cyrix based PC once (486DX iirc).
I currently have a Ryzen 7 3700x and I am very happy with it, BUT I have owned way more Intel CPU's over the last 30 or so years.
In fact this is only my second AMD CPU ever, the first being the Ryzen 5 2600 I initially bought for this build last November.
And just FYI,
My Ryzen 7 3700x does hit 4.4 GHz+ single core even without the newest AGESA (184.108.40.206ABBA) and with a few BIOS settings changed.
Look here :
What is the Maximum single core clock speed your Ryzen 7 3700x hits ? I was just wondering what everyone is getting for a max clock speed because of all the recent press about these chips not hitting the Max clock speeds (4.4 GHz ). Mine hit 4375 MHz (4.375 GHz) on one core while running...forums.tomshardware.com
It hit 4.375 GHz on 5 different cores with nothing changed in the BIOS except enabling the XMP (DOCP) profile."I hit 4.425 GHz single core today with just a few adjustments to my PBO settings." (from one of your posts on the link you shared)
Running with PBO enabled doesn't count as hitting the advertised max boost speed.
I posted hardwareunboxed investigation on the day it was published... and I was called a fanboy when it was obviously a BIOS issue and pointed it out.Lol people calling fanboys after those articles?
It is very obvious who payed on this articles.
AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Boost Clock Investigation from hardwareunboxed
I did not see tomshardware publishing this article from hardwareunboxed excellent review on the boost problem while swapping a lot of motherboards and reaching different boost clocks.
After all you love taking articles from youtube and publish it on site.
Not to mention just buy it and athlon 200ge excellent review when a 55$ cpu paired with 1000$ gpu and the igpu completly ignored in order not to make the core i7 igpu looks bad.
I want to know about weak cores and scheduler problems not to read Intel sponsered articles.
I am not agreeing with some broken analysis from toms who did not even switch the motherboard on a simple fault finding analysis, so of course I am a fanboy for pointing out the issue... (sarcasm)Why do you continually slant your headlines to be as anti-AMD as possible? Besides being click-bait? We just got through with this:
The present article should have been entitled "AMD's Ryzen Boost Fix Works (but Win Scheduler still weak)". Instead, you give the impression that the AMD fix is actually worthless.
It's a shame that you do all this careful technical work only to have some biased or ignorant editor slap on misleading headlines. You come off looking like Intel tools.
You are pointing out what I am screaming at for the last month or so. It was only a matter for Intel fanboys not even owning an AMD platform trying to fight Intel argument war. Intel even used der8aur (or whatever is name) as an argument that AMD purposely lowered their boost clock for longevity issues. Of course that FUD propagated and toms helped in the process.It hit 4.375 GHz on 5 different cores with nothing changed in the BIOS except enabling the XMP (DOCP) profile.
Which is close enough for me.
my 3700x absolutely meets my performance expectations, even if at stock settings it is .25 GHz below the stated Max Boost.
And by just enabling PBO it hit and even exceeded 4 Ghz.
And if you look on the AMD website it does state that 4.4 GHZMax boost may or may not be reached depending on several factors:
Why is it only people with low forum post counts who are talking trash in this thread ???
Do you guys just wait around for something to complain about before posting ?
How about actually helping people with PC issues, instead of complaining about something that apparently doesn't even affect you since you most likely have an Intel based PC.
Your 3900X originally boosted to within 99.5% of it's rated clocks, and now you found it to exceed those rated boost clocks by 1%, a roughly 1.5% improvement. Perhaps there isn't a particularly noticeable impact on actual performance, but how much of a performance improvement where you expecting? These are all more or less margin-of-error differences, and the entire situation was arguably a non-issue to begin with. Whether a chip slightly misses or slightly exceeds its max boost clocks on a given system should have virtually no impact on the product's overall value, or one's recommendation of it.While the new firmware delivers smaller boosts than expected...
By who, their competitor and some click-bait journalists? Has Tom's even tested a chip that has fallen short of its max boost clocks by more than a percent? Perhaps there are some chips out that miss their lightly-threaded boost clocks by more significant margins, but at least the vast majority seem to perform just fine. An online survey of anonymous internet denizens who may or may not even own the processors in question, let alone have their systems configured optimally, doesn't seem like data worth basing criticism on.Unfortunately AMD has been criticized due to some chips' inability to hit the rated boost frequencies...
But 25mhz of 4400mhz is 0.57 % of the total frequency of that chip, and then if we divide that by eight cores to get total performance amount per chip (0.07%), then divide it some more to consider potentially only temporary boosting perhaps (like Intel does), and can't you see we have a VERY serious performance problem here? I mean, have you not been reading the headlines, the comment threads, and Intel presentations? This is some serious problem!It hit 4.375 GHz on 5 different cores with nothing changed in the BIOS except enabling the XMP (DOCP) profile.
Which is close enough for me.
my 3700x absolutely meets my performance expectations, even if at stock settings it is .25 GHz below the ...
LMAO !!!!!But 25mhz of 4400mhz is 0.57 % of the total frequency of that chip, and then if we divide that by eight cores to get total performance amount per chip (0.07%), then divide it some more to consider potentially only temporary boosting perhaps (like Intel does), and can't you see we have a VERY serious performance problem here? I mean, have you not been reading the headlines, the comment threads, and Intel presentations? This is some serious problem!
Just look at all the major concern on this thread even -- this is some serious stuff we're talking about here ! You should be very concerned! Very VERY concerned, like the rest of us! [/s]
Well if AMD's boost clocks aren't exactly up to expectation, maybe their chips inability to explode and harm people isn't up to our expectations either, creating a risk ... we can never know with all this AMD "shadiness" going around ... lol.LMAO !!!!!
I am Very concerned that this CPU performs as well as it does.
I'm really worried that it might just explode at any given moment and take out my PC, me and anyone else that just happens to be standing in the vicinity at the time. LOL