My problem is I do not understand what he is trying to achieve with this "data" as his conclusions were just made up and have no correlation to the results. This just screams as click bait testing.
I'm not sure he was trying to achieve anything other than taking a sample of peoples single core boost speeds to see how they correlate to the advertised boost speeds, I'm not sure what there is to explain as i found the results fairly self explanatory, the 'conclusions' weren't just made up as the data spoke for itself and there was no relationship or connection between two or more things because he was only looking at one thing, the single core boost speeds.
If you look at the result he got from the 3600 it shows out of the 569 results people submitted 542 results qualified for inclusion and out of those 542 results 245 achieved the 3600's advertised boost speed, 24 were 25Mhz under the advertised boost speed, 51 were 50Mhz under, 69 were 75Mhz under, 79 were 100Mhz under, and 33 were 125Mhz under, and so on. He then shows what percentage of the valid submissions managed to reach their advertised boost speed or higher and that was 49.8%, have i overestimated how simple the statistics are to understand?
Roman made a good point “I don’t know how anyone can ship out a cpu where only 5% of cpus hit the advertised boost clock” sounds like a lawsuit to me
The dumb thing is they could've just lowered the maximum advertised boost clocks by 100Mhz and the majority of people would've always seen the advertised boost clocks, they could've left that spare clock speed as something for people who enabled PBO, people would've bought something like a 3700X with an advertised max boost of 4.3Ghz instead of 4.4Ghz and +80% of people would've got exactly what they paid for with the rest being like 25-50Mhz short, and then with PBO enabled people would've seen anything from a 25-125Mhz increase on the advertised max boost.
But that whole test is based on the assumption that Cinebench will provoke the max boost clock. My 3800X doesn't boost to the advertised 4.5GHz during Cinebench but often does during general use.
No, it's based on what AMD told him to do, he says near the start that AMD said to use Cinebench R15 and HWInfo with a changed polling rate and some other tweaks.
When did this happen? I find it hard to believe that AMD would sanction this kind of test.
Why am i getting the feeling people who are commenting on how his testing isn't valid haven't watched the video, he says at 3:08 mark that it was a recommendation from AMD when he contacted them in relation to the testing.
