I didn't say it wasn't false advertising, it is. You should remember though that Intel's top-SKU CPUs wouldn't maintain their boost clocks for long either if they were adhering to their TDP specs with typical cooling. Intel's chips basically have the equivalent of PBO enabled by default on the vast majority of motherboards.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel Fires Shots At AMD For False Marketing Of Boost Clocks
- Thread starter VortexA1
- Start date
Deleted member 209350
Deleted member 209350
My 3900X on the Taichi is also boosting to 4.6 with a NH15D.
Yeah yeah haven't managed to watercool the system yet, been lazy the last 3 weeks
Very impressive man!
Man the 3900x is such a beast, I really need to get one. Or a 3950x for that matter
3900X seems is just 2 3600s strapped together. 3950X seems 2 3800XsVery impressive man!
Man the 3900x is such a beast, I really need to get one. Or a 3950x for that matter
Deleted member 209350
Deleted member 209350
I think thats essentially what they pretty much are.
AMD copying the server way of doing things by just using multiple chips at once essentially
I think thats essentially what they pretty much are.
AMD copying the server way of doing things by just using multiple chips at once essentially
I do not see whats the problem because "It just works".
Lets put it this way. I have more FPS than with a 8600K @ 5Ghz, even on DX11 CPU 1-2 core heavy games like ESO & WOT.
Because I always run 2-3 things on the background, like radio, twitch streams (for drops), discord etc, and gaming at 2560x1440 not 1080p or 720p
If the power draw of the cIO die is ~15W, the 7nm chiplet with 2 deactivated cores would be around 50W.
3900X is rated 105W, so ~45W per chiplet.
Deleted member 209350
Deleted member 209350
I do not see whats the problem because "It just works".
Lets put it this way. I have more FPS than with a 8600K @ 5Ghz, even on DX11 CPU 1-2 core heavy games like ESO & WOT.
Because I always run 2-3 things on the background, like radio, twitch streams (for drops), discord etc, and gaming at 2560x1440 not 1080p or 720p
Exactly, I mean who's complaining? The chips are seriously impressive, and they will only get better. Desktops are coming back into the fray and im all for it!
But then where does it end? The box should say not only maximum clock but average duration at exact clock? Should it say what the impact of that tiny difference is also, 0.025 clock will never equate to anything noticeable in real world application. 4.375 is 4.4 if you were writing it as 1 decimal places, that’s just how it is numerically when abbreviated as GHz, unless everyone wants it written in 000000000’s. Its pretty likely on top of this that it would achieve the additional .025 with the right board and memory configuration.
All of this is a bit silly really, everybody knows it’s not max clock all cores so to focus on that is a touch pointless when the performance is very competitive at long last. Did anyone honestly buy them because of the number on the box, or did we all buy them because the performance was proven to be sufficient?
The box should say the base clock/the maximum sustainable clock for the whole chip, not the maximum clock that a single thread can sustain for less than a second.
Said who? Because that is what you think should be on the box? They can market it however they want, there is no framework for how you market a product. Historically this was also the case with the 3200+ (Barton) that ran nowhere near 3.2ghz but performed similar to a 3.2ghz p4 running at around 2ghz... you would have literally **** yourself during those years, imagine that a 2 odd ghz part being marketed as 3200+.
Athlon 64 has always been marketed fair and square. Athlon 64 3700+ 2.2GHz 1MB cache.
Nowadays, AMD simply avoids to market the real speed that the chip is running at.
My Ryzen 5 2500U is 2.0/3.6GHz according to the specifications page, when in reality its base clock is 1.5GHz and its all-core normal speed is 3.05GHz.
Intel markets the i9-9900K as 3.6GHz chip with single-thread boost up to 5.0GHz.
So devils advocate, does any of it besides relative performance even matter? You know the answer.
If your 2500u has an all core normal speed of 3.05Ghz then it's over 50% faster than the specification of 2Ghz so what are you complaining about?
Why is it ok for Intel to list a single core boost speed but not AMD?
The accurate speed in GHz is always helpful for calculation the compute theoretical performance:
Theoretical peak performance is defined as:
GFlops = (CPU speed in GHz) x (number of CPU cores) x (CPU instruction per cycle)
The point that I make is that neither 2.0GHz nor 3.6GHz are any meaningful frequency-range representations of the Ryzen 5 2500U.
2.0 GHz is a rare speed that it runs at - in light-threaded workload, for instance opening of Google Chrome.
But between its maximum 3.6 GHz and its idle clocks, there are many other clocks which could have been used as successfully, and they are as meaningless as the 2.0GHz base.
So both companies in market are doing the exact same thing, so there is parity in the marketing and therefore it’s not an issue?
If anyone purchased one who didn’t understand how boosting works they honestly won’t care regardless as it will be popped in and left on default and speed never checked.
So you agree then that relative performance is king? Tell me a single time when you have personally calculated theoretical peak performance in a real world situation? Or even better tell me how you calculate cpu instructions per cycle? Let me help to save you the keystrokes, you haven't, I spec servers, comms rooms networks etc etc and I also haven't.
So what then given the utter useless nature of that calculation for today's cpus, what would give us a performance metric that is useful using today's CPUs for the desktop keeping in mind fundamental differences in the way vendors market chips? Relative performance comparisons perhaps?
Random one but also relevant, what about power draw figures? Just throw down whatever we think?
Last edited:
^^ The problem with theoretical performance is that it is theoretical... Way to many variables in boards, bios, cooling, power, memory to make any use from such a value in marketing material. Hence simple clock speeds are used, but mostly keynotes and reviews naturally focus on comparative performance not theory. Buy this not that, simple.
Quite hilarious the whole concept of false advertising given the amount of advertising which is utter fantasy in general.
That's kinda my point every vendor in this space is an utter fantasist, if that be Intel and their lol power draw figures, AMD and boost frequencies, intel and boost frequencies. Literally any metric you can think of there is variance... some chips are even 45/65w configurable... the mind boggles on them you are literally ****** there.
You have the same people telling you don’t use fake clocks calculate performance, then performance using the above is calculated and some other people will be here telling you that’s rubbish because not everything uses all the cores. So you adjust the figure and then you’re user benchmarks and therefore a scumbag. So you use another method which is mass reviews and comparisons freely available on YouTube... But guess what those are flawed and then intel is still best but isn’t and AMD is better but isn’t. The best bit is some of these people are the same people arguing with themselves about different things
It’s a fun game.
This is like a car manufacturer producing a car with such and such performance numbers (0-60, 1/4 mile times etc) and then putting a redline on the tachometer a tad higher than the rev-limiter normally kicks in...but sometimes, when the oil temps are below a certain point, and the engine load is within certain parameters, the engine will actually rev all the way to the red-line marked on the dash.
I would expect such a manufacturer to get called-out for the optimistic red-line, but I wouldn't expect the masses to grab their torches and pitch-forks *unless* the car's actual performance suffered.
I.e. if it failed to get through the quarter mile in x.xx seconds, *then* I would expect people to get angry.
As it stands for me and my 3800x, I'm benchmarking higher than any of the reviews I have seen.
So my car is actually faster than I thought it would be. Even if the motor doesn't consistently rev as high as the stated redline, it still *performs* better than I expected.
To me, both clock speed and RPM's are "a means to an end", not an end unto itself.
If the end is performance, AMD is *actually* delivering.
I'm glad AMD is getting called-out for shady marketing, but I think some people are either conflating clock speed with performance, or just want something to rage about.
I would expect such a manufacturer to get called-out for the optimistic red-line, but I wouldn't expect the masses to grab their torches and pitch-forks *unless* the car's actual performance suffered.
I.e. if it failed to get through the quarter mile in x.xx seconds, *then* I would expect people to get angry.
As it stands for me and my 3800x, I'm benchmarking higher than any of the reviews I have seen.
So my car is actually faster than I thought it would be. Even if the motor doesn't consistently rev as high as the stated redline, it still *performs* better than I expected.
To me, both clock speed and RPM's are "a means to an end", not an end unto itself.
If the end is performance, AMD is *actually* delivering.
I'm glad AMD is getting called-out for shady marketing, but I think some people are either conflating clock speed with performance, or just want something to rage about.