• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

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

Nordic said:
Given proper cooling, I don't think there isn't an intel CPU that won't do the boost frequency on all cores if you set it to do that in the bios. That is technically overclocking, but it does work. AMD's boost is like this magical thing that sometimes boosts the cpu higher than we can overclock it ourselves. Intel's boost is deterministic. AMD's is something else.

EDIT: I think it was debauer who said he is unsure if AMD even knows why their boost is behaving the way it is.
Click to expand...
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.

Continuing from the other thread, there is indeed a problem with AMD's advertised or rated boost clocks because it shouldn't be this random. It would greatly helpful if they put a reference (spec) PC with workloads & BIOS+other settings listed so that users could actually see how/when/where these chips clock the best. Now I also mentioned that the sample set from that survey is insignificant, hence drawing any conclusions for the rest of the market is guessing at best/dubious at worst. So yeah it'd be so much better if AMD came out much cleaner than just issuing statements about the fix.

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!
 
R0H1T said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
bug said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
R0H1T said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 said:
Oems would want it... and it would sell.
Click to expand...
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?
 
R0H1T said:
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?
Click to expand...
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? :)
 
R0H1T said:
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!
Click to expand...
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.
 
EarthDog said:
The words used in the post alluded otherwise. Locked vs unlocked isn't a luxury, its a choice.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
:)
Click to expand...
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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top