• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Der8auer: Only Small Percentage of 3rd Gen Ryzen CPUs Hit Their Advertised Speeds

Joined
Aug 19, 2017
Messages
145 (0.19/day)
World famous overclocker Der8auer published his survey of boost clocks found on 3rd generation Ryzen CPUs. Collecting data from almost 3,000 entries from people around the world, he has found out that a majority of the 3000 series Ryzen CPUs are not hitting their advertised boost speeds. Perhaps one of the worst results from the entire survey are for the 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X, for which only 5.6% of entries reported have managed to reach the boost speeds AMD advertises. However, the situation is better for lower-end SKUs, with about half of the Ryzen 5 3600 results showing that their CPU is boosting correctly and within advertised numbers.

Der8auer carefully selected the results that went into the survey, where he discarded any numbers that used either specialized cooling like water chillers, Precision Boost Overdrive - PBO or the results which were submitted by "fanboys" who wanted to game the result. Testing was purely scientific using Cinebench R15 and clock speeds were recorded using HWinfo (which got recommendation from AMD), so he could get as precise data as possible.




Der8auer comments that he still recommends Ryzen 3000 series CPUs, as they present a good value and have good performance to back. He just finds it very odd that AMD didn't specify what you need to reach the advertised boost speeds.

If you would like to see the more in depth testing, here is the English version of the video:


View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
570 (1.76/day)
Temperature, temperature, temperature.

HOT SUMMER.

 
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
578 (2.74/day)
Location
Poland
Processor Ryzen 7 3700X
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite
Cooling BeQuiet Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x8 GB Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 3200 CL16 @ 3466 CL 14
Video Card(s) EVGA 1060 6GB SSC
Storage SX8200 Pro 1 TB, Plextor M6Pro 256 GB, WD Blue 2TB
Display(s) BenQ BL2411PT
Case SilverStone Primera PM01 RGB
Power Supply SeaSonic Focus Plus Gold 750W
Mouse SteelSeries Rival 300
Keyboard Generic Dell
Do we really need another thread for this?
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
4,038 (0.74/day)
Location
Formosa
System Name Overlord Mk MX
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard X570 Aorus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro
Memory Viper Steel DDR4 3800MHz 16-19-16-19-36
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC 8G
Storage 1TB WD Black NVMe (2018), 2TB Viper VPN100, 1TB WD Blue 3D NAND
Display(s) Asus PG27AQ
Case Corsair Carbide 275Q
Power Supply Corsair RM750
Mouse Logitech G500s
Keyboard Wooting Two
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/ztiub6
I would say this is as accurate as a poll asking what party people will vote for in the next election.
It's obvious a lot of people who've submitted data either don't know how to find out the peak boost speed of their CPU, or they have some other issue preventing their CPU's from boosting.
Obviously a large amount of users are having the same kind of issues that most of us have had/are having as well, but there's also a lot of suspicious data. On the other hand, it also proves that a lot of people are stuck at ~100MHz below advertised max boost, for some strange reason.
In all fairness, der8auer filtered out a lot of the crap results.
Not sure I fully agree with his conclusion, but yeah, AMD really needs to go out there and clarify things, as there's too much speculation and too little factual information with regards to what's going on.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
605 (0.66/day)
Location
Tanagra
Processor Intel i5-9600K
Motherboard ASRock H370M-ITX/ac
Cooling Gammax 300
Memory 16GB DDR4 3000
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse RX 570 4GB
Storage Inland 512GB NVMe
Display(s) LG 27UL500-W
Case Thermaltake Core V1
Audio Device(s) My ears
Power Supply EVGA 500W
Software Windows 10
What does AMD say about it? Board makers? Polls and threads are only half the story.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
4,038 (0.74/day)
Location
Formosa
System Name Overlord Mk MX
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard X570 Aorus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro
Memory Viper Steel DDR4 3800MHz 16-19-16-19-36
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC 8G
Storage 1TB WD Black NVMe (2018), 2TB Viper VPN100, 1TB WD Blue 3D NAND
Display(s) Asus PG27AQ
Case Corsair Carbide 275Q
Power Supply Corsair RM750
Mouse Logitech G500s
Keyboard Wooting Two
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/ztiub6
Low quality post by xkm1948
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,466 (1.06/day)
System Name Virtual Reality / Bioinformatics
Processor Undead CPU
Motherboard Undead TUF X99
Cooling Noctua NH-D15
Memory GSkill 128GB DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) EVGA 2080Ti
Storage Samsung 960 Pro 1TB + 860 EVO 2TB + WD Black 5TB
Display(s) Acer K272HUL, HTC Vive
Case Fractal Design R5
Audio Device(s) BOSE 2.0
Power Supply Seasonic 850watt
Mouse Logitech Master MX
Keyboard Corsair K70 Cherry MX Blue
Software Windows 10 Professional/Linux Mint
Man the amount of butt hurt AMD fans.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
108 (0.65/day)
I would say this is as accurate as a poll asking what party people will vote on in the next election.
It's obvious a lot of people who've submitted data either don't know how to find out the peak boost speed of their CPU, or they have some other issue preventing their CPU's from boosting.
Obviously a large amount of users are having the same kind of issues that most of us have had/are having as well, but there's also a lot of suspicious data. On the other hand, it also proves that a lot of people are stuck at 100MHz below advertised max boost, for some strange reason.
In all fairness, der8auer filtered out a lot of the crap results.
Not sure I fully agree with his conclusion, but yeah, AMD really needs to go out there and clarify things, as there's too much speculation and too little factual information with regards to what's going on.
The problem I see with this is that the type of users who know who Der8aurer is are not you average users, they are going to be enthusiasts. Yes, there maybe be some issues with cooling or room temperature, but it is very unlikely to be enough to make the numbers look acceptable, let alone good for AMD. This is an issue, not a crippling issue, but you know there are lawyers lining up clients as we speak for another class action suit. I still want the 3900x, and I wouldn't sue AMD, but if you advertise something, you need to make sure consumers can achieve it under most circumstances.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
605 (0.66/day)
Location
Tanagra
Processor Intel i5-9600K
Motherboard ASRock H370M-ITX/ac
Cooling Gammax 300
Memory 16GB DDR4 3000
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse RX 570 4GB
Storage Inland 512GB NVMe
Display(s) LG 27UL500-W
Case Thermaltake Core V1
Audio Device(s) My ears
Power Supply EVGA 500W
Software Windows 10
The problem I see with this is that the type of users who know who Der8aurer is are not you average users, they are going to be enthusiasts. Yes, there maybe be some issues with cooling or room temperature, but it is very unlikely to be enough to make the numbers look acceptable, let alone good for AMD. This is an issue, not a crippling issue, but you know there are lawyers lining up clients as we speak for another class action suit. I still want the 3900x, and I wouldn't sue AMD, but if you advertise something, you need to make sure consumers can achieve it under most circumstances.
AMD needs to clarify. I wonder if this is like the 5700, where each card supposedly boosts to its max potential, but not all cards will boost the same. AMD calls the top listed frequency as the “max boost clock,” so does that mean only some CPUs will get there? They really need to clarify if that is the case, though if that is true, they should have said that pre-launch. Saying that now will not go over well.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
4,038 (0.74/day)
Location
Formosa
System Name Overlord Mk MX
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard X570 Aorus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro
Memory Viper Steel DDR4 3800MHz 16-19-16-19-36
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC 8G
Storage 1TB WD Black NVMe (2018), 2TB Viper VPN100, 1TB WD Blue 3D NAND
Display(s) Asus PG27AQ
Case Corsair Carbide 275Q
Power Supply Corsair RM750
Mouse Logitech G500s
Keyboard Wooting Two
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/ztiub6
The problem I see with this is that the type of users who know who Der8aurer is are not you average users, they are going to be enthusiasts. Yes, there maybe be some issues with cooling or room temperature, but it is very unlikely to be enough to make the numbers look acceptable, let alone good for AMD. This is an issue, not a crippling issue, but you know there are lawyers lining up clients as we speak for another class action suit. I still want the 3900x, and I wouldn't sue AMD, but if you advertise something, you need to make sure consumers can achieve it under most circumstances.
Not arguing that point at all, just saying some of the submitted results look very suspect. This is from having been part of the discussions here for the last couple of months and having one myself. Yes, there are issues, but taking the 3900X graph in the news post above as an example, anyone under ~4,300MHz are having issues that are outside of just the UEFI. We also don't know what percentage are using which chipset. Maybe some of the users having problems have B350 or X370 boards with an early UEFI for Ryzen 3000.
This is why I'm saying this is about as accurate data as that from an election poll, as there are too many variables and not enough information provided.
Another things that's missing from this data is, for how long periods of time did people try to reach the boost speeds? 1 minute, 5 minutes, an hour? As it's a "random" occurrence in a way, a longer period of time is needed to actually see if the CPU boosts or not.

On the other hand, a lot of users seem to have the same issue I had for the longest of times, the max CPU core boost is stuck at around 100MHz below AMD's claimed boost. My issue got resolved with a UEFI update, so hopefully more people will be in the same situation and it can be easily rectified.

Then again, I'm surprised a small percentage of users are boosting beyond the max core boost, which implies that AMD's video where they claimed an extra boost with certain hardware configurations, might indeed be possible. I just would like to know what those configurations are...
 
Last edited:

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
26,430 (5.23/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 8700K@4.8GHz(Quick and dirty)
Motherboard AsRock Z370 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H110i GTX w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) ASUS Strix GTX 1080Ti
Storage 500GB Crucial MX500 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 480GB MX200 SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Would it have been really that much worse to just advertise the processors with max boost clocks 100MHz slower and avoid all of this mess? When will AMD's marketing team learn from their mistakes?
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
885 (0.18/day)
Location
Ireland
System Name Cubed
Processor R7 1800X
Motherboard ASRock X370 Gaming Pro
Cooling Custom 3 radiator loop for CPU and GPUs, D5 pump
Memory 32GB (4 x 8GB) Team 4000MHz @ 3200MHz
Video Card(s) 2 x Vega 64 with single slot full cover blocks
Storage Samsung 970 Evo 512GB NVMe
Display(s) BenQ BL3200
Case Corsair Carbide 540
Audio Device(s) On board
Power Supply Corsair HX1200i
Mouse Roccat Leadr
Keyboard K95 RGB
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores #1 worldwide on 3D Mark 99 or 2000 or one of those, at one point back in the day. :)
My 3900x (X470 TCU) was regularly hitting 4650 MHZon a couple of cores and 4400 on most of the rest of CCD0 and 4350 on CCD1 with one of the earlier UEFI/AGESA versions, but RAM stability was terrible.

On the latest ones, RAM is much better but the cores are only seeing about 4500 occasionally and lower clocks most of the time.

Either this is more "observer effect" and/or they need to do some more UEFI tweaking.

It's certainly very strange.

Is there maybe a "fancy new" UEFI/AGESA being readied for 3950X?
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,529 (4.12/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x8GB DDR4 2400 G.Skill
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 128 and 256GB OCZ Vertex4, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Chieftec BX01
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Not arguing that point at all, just saying some of the submitted results look very suspect. This is from having been part of the discussions here for the last couple of months and having one myself. Yes, there are issues, but taking the 3900X graph in the news post above as an example, anyone under ~4,300MHz are having issues that are outside of just the UEFI. We also don't know what percentage are using which chipset. Maybe some of the users having problems have B350 or X370 boards with an early UEFI for Ryzen 3000.
This is why I'm saying this is about as accurate data as that from an election poll, as there are too many variables and not enough information provided.
Another things that's missing from this data is, for how long periods of time did people try to reach the boost speeds? 1 minute, 5 minutes, an hour? As it's a "random" occurrence in a way, a longer period of time is needed to actually see if the CPU boosts or not.

On the other hand, a lot of users seem to have the same issue I had for the longest of times, the max CPU core boost is stuck at around 100MHz below AMD's claimed boost. My issue got resolved with a UEFI update, so hopefully more people will be in the same situation and it can be easily rectified.

Then again, I'm surprised a small percentage of users are boosting beyond the max core boost, which implies that AMD's video where they claimed an extra boost with certain hardware configurations, might indeed be possible. I just would like to know what those configurations are...
Well, boost speeds are not advertised per chipset or UEFI version, so that data is ok.
My impression is now that AMD has people's hearts, they're feeling safe enough to play fast and loose with specs. Remember the RX 480 TDP debacle?
 

srsly_bro

New Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
1 (0.05/day)
If you download the data and with the 722 data points referenced, the average boost is actually 100Mhz higher than claimed. This guy, with his own data, is either incompetent or a liar. There is no excuse to post your information then claim a lower boost clock.

Intel's Summer of Paying Shills campaign is paying off since nobody on the comments bothered to look at the data and trusted a shill.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
4,038 (0.74/day)
Location
Formosa
System Name Overlord Mk MX
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard X570 Aorus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro
Memory Viper Steel DDR4 3800MHz 16-19-16-19-36
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC 8G
Storage 1TB WD Black NVMe (2018), 2TB Viper VPN100, 1TB WD Blue 3D NAND
Display(s) Asus PG27AQ
Case Corsair Carbide 275Q
Power Supply Corsair RM750
Mouse Logitech G500s
Keyboard Wooting Two
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/ztiub6
Well, boost speeds are not advertised per chipset or UEFI version, so that data is ok.
My impression is now that AMD has people's hearts, they're feeling safe enough to play fast and loose with specs. Remember the RX 480 TDP debacle?
Reported to him, yes, but he didn't share that data, so how do we, as the audience, know that the bottom of the barrel results aren't on those boards?
What we do know, is that the board makers have different priorities in how they release new UEFI updates as well and plenty of boards still don't have stable AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB UEFI releases. Obviously some of this is on AMD as well, as they've clearly had AGESA related issues too.

It would also be nice if AMD could provide more details on their scheduler and why the fasts or even second fastest cores aren't the ones utilised as the main cores in the CPU. I generally end up loading the slower cores on my CPU, rather than the fast ones. That said, it also seems that my "fastest" core, doesn't boost as high as 2nd, 3rd and 4th fastest cores...
There are too many oddities like this, that AMD needs to come out and explain better.

If you download the data and with the 722 data points referenced, the average boost is actually 100Mhz higher than claimed. This guy, with his own data, is either incompetent or a liar. There is no excuse to post your information then claim a lower boost clock.

Intel's Summer of Paying Shills campaign is paying off since nobody on the comments bothered to look at the data and trusted a shill.
Where did you find the data?
I wouldn't call der8auer a shill though, he has no reason to take money from Intel. However, the way he's applying what he learnt in school on how to extrapolate the data, might not be correct in this case, as anything that's +/-2 Sigma, he simply filters out, which isn't really how you do statistics...
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,529 (4.12/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x8GB DDR4 2400 G.Skill
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 128 and 256GB OCZ Vertex4, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Chieftec BX01
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
It would also be nice if AMD could provide more details on their scheduler and why the fasts or even second fastest cores aren't the ones utilised as the main cores in the CPU. I generally end up loading the slower cores on my CPU, rather than the fast ones. That said, it also seems that my "fastest" core, doesn't boost as high as 2nd, 3rd and 4th fastest cores...
There are too many oddities like this, that AMD needs to come out and explain better.
Obviously they can, they just won't ;)
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
4,038 (0.74/day)
Location
Formosa
System Name Overlord Mk MX
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard X570 Aorus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro
Memory Viper Steel DDR4 3800MHz 16-19-16-19-36
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC 8G
Storage 1TB WD Black NVMe (2018), 2TB Viper VPN100, 1TB WD Blue 3D NAND
Display(s) Asus PG27AQ
Case Corsair Carbide 275Q
Power Supply Corsair RM750
Mouse Logitech G500s
Keyboard Wooting Two
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/ztiub6
I think 4550Mhz is close enough to 4600Mhz boost for 3900x.
Well, that's fine that you think so, but it's not what AMD "sold" everyone, right? The argument isn't about close enough, but rather what was promised, but often not delivered.
In all fairness, I can't complain any more, as my hardware delivers what AMD claimed on the box.

Obviously they can, they just won't ;)
Which is part of the problem as well. It leads to more confusion and more discussions like this.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,529 (4.12/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x8GB DDR4 2400 G.Skill
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 128 and 256GB OCZ Vertex4, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Chieftec BX01
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
If you download the data and with the 722 data points referenced, the average boost is actually 100Mhz higher than claimed. This guy, with his own data, is either incompetent or a liar. There is no excuse to post your information then claim a lower boost clock.

Intel's Summer of Paying Shills campaign is paying off since nobody on the comments bothered to look at the data and trusted a shill.
The data isn't linked in the article. Where can I download it from?
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
4,038 (0.74/day)
Location
Formosa
System Name Overlord Mk MX
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Motherboard X570 Aorus Master
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro
Memory Viper Steel DDR4 3800MHz 16-19-16-19-36
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2080 Gaming OC 8G
Storage 1TB WD Black NVMe (2018), 2TB Viper VPN100, 1TB WD Blue 3D NAND
Display(s) Asus PG27AQ
Case Corsair Carbide 275Q
Power Supply Corsair RM750
Mouse Logitech G500s
Keyboard Wooting Two
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/ztiub6
My 3600 doesn't hit anything above 4100mhz. Not even single thread low load. With custom water cooling. The box says 4200...
Care to share the rest of your hardware, as well as UEFI version? Without that, it's hard to give any suggestions.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
723 (0.23/day)
This is a useless debate.

The box of any AMD cpu states clearly, boost up to Y speeds. Up to. That doesnt mean that any CPU will be capable of doing that.

You have a few parameters that should be taken into consideration:

- Temperatures
- CPU stability (FIT)
- Motherboard current supply
- Type of single-core workload, it all comes down to current drawn by that same single core

I think if we exclude a faulty motherboard, and proper cooling, you would be left with 2 things and those are the FIT CPU stability at that given clockspeed, and the type of workload. FIT kicks in when one core is drawing too much current and puts the boost clocks down. If you would bypass FIT it would fry the internals of the chip (degradation). If the given workload is a lightweight one, i.e not too much current, youd actually see that the boost clock could be held at whatever AMD is advertising with.

Some cores simply are not stable for the max advertised boost speeds, so FIT makes sure it stays within that range to provide a perfectly stable core.

Their system is really clever, the boost guarantees a stable working at a given speed without risk of harming the CPU on long term base. Its the same argument as people would be setting 1.4V manual while the single core speed is reaching up to 1.55V or so because people think it would be hurting their CPU on long term. No dummys putting 1.4V on long term is going to harm you CPU!

I think the masses are not aware of how the boost algorithm works, and how AMD implemented it. Some of you should really go in depth and start monitoring the CPU and read posts like the Stilth who already documented the boost algorithm and behaviour. I spend quite a few hours with my 2700x to know that, a slight undervolt is enough to have it all core on 4.1GHz and in some occasions on 4.2Ghz while on single core having 4.35Ghz is the best i can get with it in combination with a 360mm rad paired with 6 fans. The boost starts to drop once the CPU archieves 60 degrees and beyond. So, for full boost constant try to keep the cpu within 60 degrees. But thats difficult since the core is so small that the heat density is just coming greater and greater as you can see on Intel CPUs too.

Theres not much headroom beyond that what the XFR is already giving you.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
3,368 (1.25/day)
@AleksandarK
Der8auer carefully selected the results that went into the survey, where he discarded any numbers that used either specialized cooling like water chillers, Precision Boost Overdrive - PBO or the results which were submitted by "fanboys" who wanted to game the result. Testing was purely scientific using Cinebench R15 and clock speeds were recorded using HWinfo (which got recommendation from AMD), so he could get as precise data as possible.
?

Did you see his survey? It's right here - der8auer I need YOUR Help! RYZEN 3000 Boost Analysis Survey

1.) Which CPU do you use ?

2.) Which Motherboard do you use ?

3.) Which AGESA you use ?
1.0.0.2
1.0.0.3 AB
1.0.0.3 ABB
*Notice he didn't include 1.0.0.3 A

4.) Please enter the max boost of your CPU during Cinebench R15

Comment



How can he discard any specialized cooling if he didn't ask for such information in the first place. How can he know if people are or aren't using PBO either. He certainly wasn't asking for any type of proof/validation.

Scientific? More like a questionnaire.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,452 (0.99/day)
Processor Intel Core i9 7980XE Custom IHS @ 4.6Ghz 1.23v
Motherboard ASUS Rampage VI Extreme Omega
Cooling EK-Velocity D-RGB, EK-CoolStream PE 360, XSPC TX240 Ultrathin, EK X-RES 140 Revo D5 RGB PWM
Memory G.Skill Trident Z RGB F4-3000C14D 64GB
Video Card(s) AORUS GeForce RTX™ 2080 Ti XTREME WATERFORCE WB 11G
Storage Samsung 960 Pro NVME 512GB, 2x 850 Evos 1TB, 860 Evo 1TB, WD Blue 3TB
Display(s) LG 43ud79-b
Case Corsair 500D SE EK RGB Fans
Power Supply Cooler Master Vanguard Series 1000W
Software Windows 10
Temperature, temperature, temperature.

HOT SUMMER.


130710
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,529 (4.12/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x8GB DDR4 2400 G.Skill
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 128 and 256GB OCZ Vertex4, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Chieftec BX01
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
This is a useless debate.

The box of any AMD cpu states clearly, boost up to Y speeds. Up to. That doesnt mean that any CPU will be capable of doing that.
No, that is not what boost has meant until Zen2. If that were the case, you'd see manufacturers using "1THz boost" on their boxes, because, well, it's "up to" and one of their engineers has seen one CPU reaching those speeds when no one else was looking.

And the debate is not useless, like the debate about GTX 970's VRAM wasn't useless at the time: it doesn't mean users get screwed, but it sends a clear message this is a practice we could do without.
 
Top