Intel Fires Shots At AMD For False Marketing Of Boost Clocks

[VortexA1]

I personally don't think Intel should do this, there you go the link below.

https://respawnfirst.com/intel-amd-false-marketing-boost-clocks/

 

[z10m]

that was expected.
the problem is that if AMD gets away with that Intel will be advertising its next gen CPUs the same way...
days of overclocking will come to an end and this forum might as well be shut down...

 

[humbug]

So Intel are talking about AMD, keeping them nicely in the news and this sort of childish "But AMD are lying to you" is not a good look for Intel. Now Intel just look like they see AMD as a credible threat.

This is the sort of marketing AMD do and really shouldn't, good to see Intel taking up the same strategy.

Handbags in Silicon Valley.

 

[jigger]

The launch of Rome must have really stung.

 

[VortexA1]

They say that AMD's rush to get to 7nm is to blame...mm...at least they're pushing things forward... if it wasn't for them we'd not be going forward.

 

[Steampunk]

TBF, AMD shouldn't have left themselves open to this with what they've done with the Ryzen 3 launch and their fudging of boost clocks and subsequent changes. It's a marketing weakness that Intel will try to exploit in the absence of competing hardware at the same price points.

 

[MartinPrince]

Well my 3900X boosts to 4.575Ghz which is close enough to 4.6Ghz for me.

 

[Hotwired]

Doesn't mean Intel are not douchebags grasping at any straw they can.

But the boost clocks of the new cpus are a whole new level of rare event right now. They can do it, you'll just go blind trying to catch the moment. At some point you need to just forget about it and let it do its thing.

This is something tech channels are fine talking about and I don't recall anyone worth listening to getting out a pitchfork over it.

The performance is fine. Would be nice to have more clock speed but the automatic overclocking is amazing and helps in that regard.

Intel needs to shaddup with the weak trash talk and make something nice.

I guess when you can't make anything nice you've only got the one option left.

 

[Journey]

If you can't beat them, sl ag them off.

A bit of the above is an exaggeration, as AMD obviously have issues with their newly lunched CPU' s that have been out 7 weeks. It's just a shame that Intel are being found out to have a new vunerability every other week, that have been out for over 500 weeks.

You have to laugh though, as marketing should be just made illegal and everyone would be better off.

 

[DarrenM343]

The 9900K hardly reaches 5Ghz either, stock. I found that 5Ghz single core marketing misleading. OS's & apps will use more than a single core so for most users most of the time 5Ghz won't be reached .
Think I was a bit surprised about the max frequency the 1950X reached too. Still a great CPU though but not quite the 4Ghz reached.

 

[Stephanie Peterson]

Folk are having a bit of an overreaction to this boosting crap.
Yeah AMD dropped the ball a bit with this but its hardly the end of the world. The chips aint far off the top clock, mostly.

We all know AMDs marketing department is useless, and its hardly like intel can point the finger as many of there cpu's are guilty of much worse.

 

[Yaayuh!]

TBF, AMD shouldn't have left themselves open to this with what they've done with the Ryzen 3 launch and their fudging of boost clocks and subsequent changes.

Indeed. It was bound to happen and Intel took the shot. I'm not surprised and it's fair enough, as AMD are in the wrong.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Yeah AMD dropped the ball a bit with this but its hardly the end of the world. The chips aint far off the top clock, mostly.

So they get to place fictional clock speeds on the box, because...??

 

[Hotwired]

So they get to place fictional clock speeds on the box, because...??

But they're not are they.

Even Intel isn't pushing that line, all they're reaching for is that not all cores can reach the boost clock. Which is true. AMD says it themselves which makes the Intel echo farcical.

I doubt Intel want to open the can of worms that is how long boost is achieved for on X cores because their own boost algorithm is not sustained and will fall off. Meanwhile AMDs boost is continuous as long as temps are fine.

 

[FredFlint]

My 3900 did boost to ~4.6 at first, the next few BIOS/chipset updates have lowered it a bit to 4.45. That said, it's still a fast chip and I would have still got it if it had a max boost of 4.4.

 

[Yaayuh!]

But they're not are they.

Even Intel isn't pushing that line, all they're reaching for is that not all cores can reach the boost clock. Which is true. AMD says it themselves which makes the Intel echo farcical.

I doubt Intel want to open the can of worms that is how long boost is achieved for on X cores because their own boost algorithm is not sustained and will fall off. Meanwhile AMDs boost is continuous as long as temps are fine.

Maybe not fictional but more like ‘miraculous’, since only a small handful of people have seen the figure on the box in any situation. It’s not a case of “not all cores can reach the boost clock advertised” but actually that NO cores can reach that boost clock, at all.

The closest I’ve seen with mine, for instance, is 50Mhz off, which isn’t as bad as some others. Never seen 4.6GHz on the 3900X since AGESA 1.0.0.3, regardless of temperature or load type.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

But they're not are they.

Even Intel isn't pushing that line, all they're reaching for is that not all cores can reach the boost clock. Which is true. AMD says it themselves which makes the Intel echo farcical.

I doubt Intel want to open the can of worms that is how long boost is achieved for on X cores because their own boost algorithm is not sustained and will fall off. Meanwhile AMDs boost is continuous as long as temps are fine.

For some, no cores reach boost clock. Ever. That's why I quoted the post I quoted, because no where have AMD claimed that the boost clock won't be far off, mostly.

 

[chroniclard]

It's crap from AMD, they need pulling up for it.

 

[Hotwired]

For some, no cores reach boost clock. Ever. That's why I quoted the post I quoted, because no where have AMD claimed that the boost clock won't be far off, mostly.

But this isn't true either.

If you have a rummage of the tech sites testing you'll find the SAME CPU will boost to different frequencies with the SAME cooler with DIFFERENT motherboards.

So X config not hitting the boost isn't evidence that the CPU can't do it.

Obviously it would be nice to know why some mobos are better than others.

And additionally there is the matter that AMD says X.X on the box not X.XX and whether you like it or not there are conventions when removing a decimal place.

These are all points which have been discussed by tech sites looking at this. I'm gonna go look for some links for you.

And back again

Hardware unboxed testing the same CPU on 14 motherboards

Max boost at default settings

6/14 motherboards allowed the cpu to do 4.50
11/14 motherboards allowed the cpu to do 4.5 <- note the reduction of decimal places
3/14 motherboards failed by any standard to reach the boost frequency with a CPU that was known to be capable.

Individual core maximum clock speed from different motherboards again

I need to emphasise this is all with the same CPU and using default settings.

 

[robfosters]

My GB ultras boosting nicely over 4.6. I think the highest I’ve seen is 4.625