Monday, August 12th 2019

AMD Updates Ryzen Product Pages to Elaborate on "Max Boost Clocks"

AMD over the weekend updated the product-pages of its Ryzen processors on the company website to be very specific about what they mean by "Max Boost Clocks," that are advertised almost as extensively as the processor's main nominal clock-speeds. AMD describes it has "the maximum single-core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating under nominal conditions." We read into this as the highest boost-clock given to one of the cores on the processor.

If you've been reading the "clock-frequency and boost analysis" charts in our processor reviews, you'll know that AMD processors spread their boost frequency progressively across cores during a multi-threaded workload that scales across all cores. At any given time, only one of the cores is awarded the highest boost clock, and while the other cores too get boosted beyond the nominal clock-speeds, they are in slight decrements of 25-50 MHz. The graph below is from our Ryzen 7 3700X review. The second graph below is from our Core i9-9900K review, which too shows only one of the cores getting the max boost frequency, and the remaining cores getting lower boost clocks, although the graph looks flatter.
Source: squidz0rz (Reddit)
Add your own comment

134 Comments on AMD Updates Ryzen Product Pages to Elaborate on "Max Boost Clocks"

#126
bug
R0H1T, post: 4111008, member: 131092"
Should be clear why that is, AMD doesn't have the luxury to sell locked chips with 2GHz base clocks as all their chips are unlocked. So while Intel could throw away their less than ideal chips even at uncompetitive prices, as locked variants, in retail or OEM channels. AMD cannot do that, now whether they tried or not is up for debate.
What do you mean they don't have the luxury? They chose not to sell such chips and made a pretty big fuss out of it.
Posted on Reply
#127
R0H1T
bug, post: 4111015, member: 157434"
What so you mean they don't have the luxury? They chose not to sell such chips and made a pretty big fuss out of it.
You mean I can buy el cheapo OEM build with Ryzen 8 cores, locked at that? That's debatable, we also don't know if OEM channels would buy such locked chips considering how strong (& manipulative) Intel is in that sector. At this point in time I'm just gonna assume AMD didn't try, instead of them not being able to sell these chips over there.
Posted on Reply
#128
EarthDog
R0H1T, post: 4111017, member: 131092"
You mean I can buy el cheapo OEM build with Ryzen 8 cores, locked at that? That's debatable, we also don't know if OEM channels would buy such locked chips considering how strong (& manipulative) Intel is in that sector. At this point in time I'm just gonna assume AMD didn't try, instead of them not being able to sell these chips over there.
Big bad Intel, lol....

My dude... locked or unlocked isnt baked into the silicon. If amd wanted in that market, they would be there. Oems would want it... and it would sell.
Posted on Reply
#129
R0H1T
Of course I know that, however does AMD even have a market for these chips in places where Pentiums, Celerons & i3 reign supreme? I guess you have an answer to that as well?
EarthDog, post: 4111081, member: 79836"
Oems would want it... and it would sell.
Let's not get into that, we've seen this happen more than once, even this decade in fact! Beema & Mullins were more than competitive in the space Atoms were selling about half a decade back. Do I need to remind you why they never got traction - hint it starts with a C?
Posted on Reply
#130
EarthDog
R0H1T, post: 4111100, member: 131092"
Of course I know that, however does AMD even have a market for these chips in places where Pentiums, Celerons & i3 reign supreme? I guess you have an answer to that as well?
Let's not get into that, we've seen this happen more than once, even this decade in fact! Beema & Mullins were more than competitive in the space Atoms were selling about half a decade back. Do I need to remind you why they never got traction - hint it starts with a C?
The words used in the post alluded otherwise. Locked vs unlocked isn't a luxury, its a choice.

Clearly I do, the answer is yes. Why WOULDN'T they is a better question... there is a non HT part coming out to compete in that budget space. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw more.

I have no idea what the price of rice in China has to do with this discussion. Let's keep the goal posts within context at least, eh? :)
Posted on Reply
#131
Nordic
R0H1T, post: 4111008, member: 131092"
I will again reiterate though that the boost behavior is dependent on a huge number of variables, so it isn't all their fault because they had to keep TDP in check as well as maintain backwards compatibility!
I don't understand why you are making this point to me. I can manipulate the boost clock via voltage and temperature up to 4525mhz with my cpu under nominal conditions. My cpu will not boost past 4525mhz and this is not dependent on any variable I can adjust.

I believe amds will fix this problem. Maybe a bios update will fix it like it did for thelostswede. Either way, the variable is out of my control.
Posted on Reply
#132
R0H1T
EarthDog, post: 4111081, member: 79836"
The words used in the post alluded otherwise. Locked vs unlocked isn't a luxury, its a choice.
No what I asked was why couldn't I get an 8 core locked part, even though they've arguably been the best VFM & most popular chips since launch. If we are to nitpick you could extend that logic to 6 cores as well, why aren't OEM scrambling to get them even for mid range builds? The locked part was more about price, AMD could sell them cheaper (with lower clocks) although one could argue they'd make them less "attractive" given the biggest selling point about these chips.
Clearly I do, the answer is yes. Why WOULDN'T they is a better question... there is a non HT part coming out to compete in that budget space. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw more.
Then clearly we don't agree, when there's huge incentives in selling Intel chips I'd say the answer is no & then another NO.
I have no idea what the price of rice in China has to do with this discussion. Let's keep the goal posts within context at least, eh? [IMG alt=":)"]https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/styles/tpu/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]
I said nothing about China, it's contra revenues! Intel spent IIRC close to $20 billion trying to fit Atoms in smartphones & tablets, it was so bad that they had to hide it from plain sight after a while. Although the vast majority of it was spent on phones, tablets (even chromebooks) - where Beema & Mullins would compete - obviously had a fair share allocated for "promotional" reasons!
Posted on Reply
#133
EarthDog
Jesus man.... take the blue pill next time, lol.
Posted on Reply
#134
R0H1T
I still don't get that matrix reference, after all these years but yeah point taken :laugh:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment