News Survey: Only 5.6 Percent of Ryzen 9 3900X Hit Advertised Speeds, Most Other Models Suffer, Too

AlistairAB

Honorable
May 21, 2014
146
26
10,710
0
I've built many Ryzen 3000 systems and all of them will hit the boost clock, while under low utilization, confirmed by a look at a recorded HWInfo max clock speed reading. Doesn't mean you'll get the boost clock under a full single threaded Cinebench run. Why is that conveniently the definition now?

My 8086k doesn't hit 5ghz under Cinebench ST runs either. Same story. The 9900k hits it because unlike the 8086k the boost is for 2 cores, not 1. And the 9900k will throttle itself under full load also, and not hit its all core boost speed either. A little perspective is necessary.

This is like only being mad at LG for 1ms lies/misleading claims, but not being against Asus or TN panel makers doing the same thing.
 
Really, boost clocks are confusing.

Some CPUs hit their rated turbo under a 1 core workload, others under a 2 core workload. Some will only hit that speed when really cool, and some are duration limited.

I dont really see any 9900k hitting at 5ghz either from the factory. Its like 4.8/9
 
Reactions: alextheblue

TCA_ChinChin

Reputable
Feb 15, 2015
282
58
4,940
22
Shame that not many Ryzen 3rd gen live up to their advertised clock speeds. Probably would have been better for AMD just to lower the advertised boost clocks by like 100 MHz and it probably wouldn't have been such a big deal.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
I've built many Ryzen 3000 systems and all of them will hit the boost clock, while under low utilization, confirmed by a look at a recorded HWInfo max clock speed reading. Doesn't mean you'll get the boost clock under a full single threaded Cinebench run. Why is that conveniently the definition now?
The way the article is worded, it sounds like HWInfo is sampling the clock and they're just reporting the max value. Normally, you'd expect that to be at the start of the run. If so, that seems fair to me - not looking at sustained or final clocks, but just the max value that it reaches at any point.

That said, you have a point that maybe the max boost clock assumes a less parallel, non-vectorized workload. AMD has said Ryzen 3k doesn't have any explicit AVX2-downclock, but that it's just subordinate to their normal power & thermal management. That's not the same as saying those workloads won't affect your clock speeds, however. Maybe they should rerun the experiment using a workload like single-threaded Javascript parsing.

Anyway, it sounds like he also collected data on cooling solutions (i.e. if he's able do discard results using chillers). I wonder how much the situation improves, if you exclude everyone using the boxed cooler.
 
Reactions: alextheblue

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
2,912
35
20,820
2
AMD has said Ryzen 3k doesn't have any explicit AVX2-downclock, but that it's just subordinate to their normal power & thermal management. That's not the same as saying those workloads won't affect your clock speeds, however.
This was my immediate thought. Workload type affects Intel boost too... the whole affair just kind of makes me chuckle.
 
Reactions: bit_user
Apr 26, 2019
9
4
15
0
My 8086k doesn't hit 5ghz under Cinebench ST runs either. Same story. The 9900k hits it because unlike the 8086k the boost is for 2 cores, not 1. And the 9900k will throttle itself under full load also, and not hit its all core boost speed either. A little perspective is necessary.
It's not the same story,for intel if you go with a high performance mobo it will make the CPU boost to it's max clocks...and then some,the whole story about the 9900k being a power hog and being very hot comes from this fact.
You can also look at silicon lottery,100% of 9900k hit 4.8Ghz all core on normal workloads.
100% of the 9900k also hits 4.6 on all core for AVX while for the 3900x it's only 4Ghz for all core.
https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics
 

hotaru251

Reputable
Oct 30, 2014
380
15
4,865
37
My question is will this lead to a lawsuit?

we see nem sued (and lose) due to not true core cpu's....if ppl expect these speeds and cant get them wouldnt this be false advertisement and not selling what buyer is promised?
 

Lunetouche

Commendable
Dec 2, 2016
2
1
1,515
0
He discounted a large number of results that were just 25mhz under max boost. That's less than .5% which could easily be a measuring error or max missed due to the rapid changes evading the polling. Personally my 3800x is boosting fine on all cores, the trick being keeping it nice and chilly. 360mm AIO and as many fans as I could cram in my 011 dynamic :p you know what never hit full boost ? My dud of a 5930k :p
 
Reactions: Mandark

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
My question is will this lead to a lawsuit?
Some people might try that, but I think the most likely outcome is for AMD to issue a statement characterizing the workloads that are used for Max Boost testing.

if ppl expect these speeds and cant get them wouldnt this be false advertisement and not selling what buyer is promised?
Well, you should also ask why Intel isn't being sued for several generations of their CPUs not hitting tubo boost speeds on AVX2 workloads. Relatively few people actually know about the reduced clocks for AVX2, yet there seems to be acceptance of that policy.

That further underscores that this might really be a matter of customer education, on AMD's part.
 
Reactions: King_V

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
He discounted a large number of results that were just 25mhz under max boost. That's less than .5% which could easily be a measuring error or max missed due to the rapid changes evading the polling.
You should take a closer look at the distribution (hint: click on the graph). Even allowing for 25 or 50 MHz of error, the substantial majority of CPUs fall well below.

Don't give too much heed to the peak, either - that just represents the most popular result, but a lot of CPUs still fall below that point.
 
Reactions: TJ Hooker
Aug 29, 2019
3
0
10
0
Stupid survey. Doesn't account for any kind of cooling, or people just trolling the survey. Also doesn't account for the possiblity of bad boards/BIOS and how the newer boards might actually be shittier than old cheap boards:

Was a dude on AMD-subreddit claiming he made 10+ fakes to make AMD look bad.
No, you just want it to be a stupid survey. Doesn't matter if you like this news.
 
Well, you should also ask why Intel isn't being sued for several generations of their CPUs not hitting tubo boost speeds on AVX2 workloads. Relatively few people actually know about the reduced clocks for AVX2, yet there seems to be acceptance of that policy.

That further underscores that this might really be a matter of customer education, on AMD's part.
Because for several generations now intel has stopped issuing turbo boost tables,for this exact reason.
Also anytime they show a number for turbo they also always state what they mean by that.

Max turbo frequency is the maximum single core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating using Intel® Turbo Boost Technology and, if present, Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost. Frequency is measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second.
 

AlistairAB

Honorable
May 21, 2014
146
26
10,710
0
You should take a closer look at the distribution (hint: click on the graph). Even allowing for 25 or 50 MHz of error, the substantial majority of CPUs fall well below.

Don't give too much heed to the peak, either - that just represents the most popular result, but a lot of CPUs still fall below that point.
This is during a Cinebench run. The boost isn't for a Cinebench run, that is obviously not how it is defined.... :rolleyes:

As people have said, Intel's turbo boost doesn't apply for AVX, so you never see it with Intel either. And a ST run of Cinebench doesn't make your computer only use 1 thread, Windows needs threads too! Thus my 8086k NEVER runs at 5ghz. Marketing nonsense. It might run at 5ghz when doing nothing except clicking on something, just like with Ryzen. Intel lies for years no-one makes it an issue, Ryzen doesn't boost too, now it is an issue, the main reason being the boost speeds for Ryzen are higher than the all core overclock, while for Intel, the boost speeds are usually lower than you can hit with an all core overclock, making it so sometimes there is an advantage to relying on boost instead of setting your own overclock, for Ryzen.
 

AlistairAB

Honorable
May 21, 2014
146
26
10,710
0
It's not the same story,for intel if you go with a high performance mobo it will make the CPU boost to it's max clocks...and then some,the whole story about the 9900k being a power hog and being very hot comes from this fact.
You can also look at silicon lottery,100% of 9900k hit 4.8Ghz all core on normal workloads.
100% of the 9900k also hits 4.6 on all core for AVX while for the 3900x it's only 4Ghz for all core.
https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics
Those are manual overclocks, not turbo boosts, completely different subject and not relevant here. And besides, the 9700k and 9900k consume too much power so that most motherboards will down-clock them BELOW the all core boost speed automatically if you don't disable current draw limits in the BIOS. My 9900k runs at 4.5ghz max with my motherboard in Prime95 if I don't disable the limits, so the boost is a lie there, also. Even under a manual OC, it will still drop to 4.5ghz in Prime95 if you don't disable the current limits (this is not a VRM temp issue, in Asus motherboards you have to enable "multi core enhancement - remove all limits" or else the BIOS won't allow the CPU to draw the 200W it needs at default settings, TDP is not the actual power draw of the 9900k).

Notice the sneaky crap that Silicon Lottery pulls, including AVX offsets of -2 in their statistics. So actually 100 percent of 9900k hit 4.6ghz, not 4.7ghz. You thought it was 4.8ghz, but it isn't. You are looking at the non AVX numbers. Great way to exaggerate your over-clocks, the AVX offset is a scam for braggadocios...
 
Last edited:

daglesj

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2007
443
9
18,785
0
Do folks always forget that the first runs of new chips usually don't perform the best. Give the new process another 3 months and the boosts will hit far better I bet.

I never buy new chips for this reason. Always wait a while for the silicon to mature.
 
Reactions: bit_user

martel80

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2006
368
0
18,780
0
Have they accounted for room temperatures and cooling solutions used? I guess you can't really expect the CPU to boost fully at 35+ degrees centigrade ambient and using the stock cooler.
 

TechyInAZ

Titan
Moderator
Do folks always forget that the first runs of new chips usually don't perform the best. Give the new process another 3 months and the boosts will hit far better I bet.

I never buy new chips for this reason. Always wait a while for the silicon to mature.
Yeah i believe we are waiting for AGESA 1.0.04 to fix all the issues with 1.0.03ABB. Be interesting if that code also fixes the boosting issues.
 
Reactions: DMAN999

FunSurfer

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
904
1
19,165
68
This is like the GTX970 VRAM all over again: yes, it HAS 4GB VRAM, but not quite...
Yes, the Ryzen 3000 cpu CAN reach this advertised boost speed, but not quite...
By the way, both are genius marketing cases, because the products have great performance so they will be bought, but there is something that will push buyers to buy the next generation, where this specific "problem" will, of course, be gone.
 
Sep 2, 2019
5
5
15
0
This is like the GTX970 VRAM all over again: yes, it HAS 4GB VRAM, but not quite...
Yes, the Ryzen 3000 cpu CAN reach this advertised boost speed, but not quite...
By the way, both are genius marketing cases, because the products have great performance so they will be bought, but there is something that will push buyers to buy the next generation, where this specific "problem" will, of course, be gone.
Actually those two cases have nothing in common. The first case was real, you could verify that the 500mb of ram was different from the rest. The second case is based on one flawed survey then parroted by this hack of a website that is circling the drain.
 
Reactions: PEnnn and bit_user
This is like the GTX970 VRAM all over again: yes, it HAS 4GB VRAM, but not quite...
Yes, the Ryzen 3000 cpu CAN reach this advertised boost speed, but not quite...
By the way, both are genius marketing cases, because the products have great performance so they will be bought, but there is something that will push buyers to buy the next generation, where this specific "problem" will, of course, be gone.
But the 970 will never, even be able to use 4GB vram (driver or Vbios limit to prevent the slow 512MB ram from being accessed)

The Ryzen 3k CPU will hit boot clocks, just only under absolutely perfect circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: bit_user

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS