Der8auer: "Good number of Ryzen 3000 chips does not reach boost clock"

Is just me or that graphic looks like a certain sign with the middle finger???

 

it does and for good reason

 

Imagine if a company would advertise an 8 core cpu and you will get only 7 or 6 or more (9, 10) based on silicon lottery or other factors - now that is entertainment...

in my case below screenshots from my two systems: for AMD Ryzen 2700X advertised turbo speed 4300 MHz = real world only 4050 MHz and Intel i9900k advertised turbo 4700 MHz = real 4700 MHz...
In both cases the motherboard is gigabyte aorus master series for both chipsets and the cooler used for the AMD system is an Noctua Nh-D15 SE AM4 so no cooling issues.

 

As a user, you shouldn't really mind the slightly lower boost clock. If it is slightly lower, lets say 100~150Mhz.
But, as a consumer, you should be furious. If it is one of your key selling points, you must provide it at 100%.
I like AMD, I own a Ryzen 7 1700 and an RX 480, and that's because -at least when it comes to pricing and effort- they are more respectful towards the consumer compared to nVidia and/or Intel.
Hell, just a few hours ago I ordered my RX 5700 XT. But if the "downgrade to provide longevity" thing was planned beforehand -though nothing factual points to this for now-, it's an outright scam and I'll reconsider future purchases.

 

It is not something new or original - the same scam (marketing strategy) is used for a long time in the auto industry: when you want to buy a new car they advertise a fuel consumption that is just unreal sometimes and you see when you drive the car that you can never reach that fuel economy no matter how economically you drive and then you find out that the advertised rate is obtained in "certain" conditions that can never be replicated in the real world...

 

i think they just were a little to optimistic about expected avg clocks/perf, and reality said "nope".
then again, its called boost, not minimum clock, and disclaimers always say "up to",
no matter what brand anyway.
i now look at base clocks being all core/full load freq, and boost clocks as a ST frequ.

then again running 3600 a 240 hydro, all auto oc/pbo etc turned off in bios, power/settings on normal/reg/auto,
i get 3900-4000 MT, and 4075-4100 on ST.

@Mpampis
please explain why YOU would reconsider brands, when you dont even own 3xxx,
nor have experienced that "issue"?

sure, past 10% its not irrelevant nor statistical error, but as hilber said,
too many variables involved that are not under control of the (data) collector...

 

Well I used HWInfo to monitor as was instructed, and according to that on a 3900X with stock settings I get a max boost of 4.5GHz, never 4.6GHz, even if it is for a second. According to HWInfo my chip might be a Qualification Sample? HWInfo lists it as an Engineering Sample, but the in its serial says QS. So is HWI wrong, or...?

That max boost of 4.5GHz scores 201 in Cinebench unless I have all background junk closed, in which case it scored 207. In that case I might as well just leave it at an all-core OC of 4325MHz which I found to be seemingly stable at 1.39V, sure beats the 1.48-1.488V the auto settings pump through the chip. That also scores 201 single core with tons of stuff in my background.

Side note: My board goes nuts and doesn't allow actually decoupling the Infinity Fabric clock from the memory clock. Setting them separately results in half (of RAM) Infinity Fabric speed no matter what. All settings must be auto and at 3600MHz or lower, then the IF will run at the proper 1800MHz to match the RAM... aaaaand my RAM is stuck on a 2T command rate for some reason. All this, despite AMD themselves confirming Zen 2 is designed to handle an IF clock with a 1:1 ratio to the RAM up to 3733MHz. Good job MSI, you mouth breathing proto chimps.

This has been the messiest CPU upgrade I've ever had, great performance, but just figuring out what the hell is going on has been a convoluted clown fiesta.

 

never saw anyone mentioning numbers higher than 1800 for IF (3600 on ram) when 1:1.
past that it, will switch to 2:1, which is normal.
3533 might most of the time even work better, as boards use auto on some settings (not man).

 

I have a Chip that can run past Max boost with Beta BIOS,I am running the newest BIOS with lower boost but the strange thing is.I get all the stability with the newest BIOS and the same performance.So I am good.

Not a good look for AMD at all and it amazing how they can mess this easy stuff up.
People need to get past the number thing though.AMD clock for clock is matching or passing Intel as of today in applications.Intel is faster 95% of games by a little bit not even worth talking about and I am sure if developers designed games for AMD in mind as much as Intel,that would be different.

The AMD CPU'S are still fast little buggers despite AMD clock reporting in third party applications or there own Ryzen Master.
I will keep building AMD systems until Intel can come up with something better,then Intel all the way.

Ryzen 3600X I run 3800 The memory clock (mclk), the memory controller clock (uclk), and the infinity fabric clock (fclk)

Spoiler

https://i.**********/wjyBtpY8/Desktop-Screenshot-2019-09-02-13-06-43-96-2.png

 

Based on the graph result do you think that AMD is giving us...the finger???

 

the problem with Ryzen currently, is that right now, when you buy a processor and a motherboard combo you cannot know which result you'll get
worse than that you are forced to take motherboard X unless you want it to have a negative impact on your cpu
this is simply not acceptable
as a consumer I am furious and I did cancel my 3900x pre-order (thx God i waited for the cpu before buying the rest of the parts) at this point I'm waiting for Intel next HEDT, something I never tought I'd say considering their ludicrous prices ><

you do realize that when you buy Intel you 100% get the advertised clocks and can easily get more than they advertise ? (+8,5% in my case)
on AMD, even if you "reach" those clock speed it's for what 1-3s ? I can run 5100Mhz all cores aidastresstest for 30min :/ and it's not sold to me for that but it can do it

with Intel you pay to get more than advertised
with AMD you pay for a "surprise mechanic" cpu/lootbox
no no and no
this makes me sad and angry ,sad because I was hyped for the new X570 plateform (that would fix my pcielanes/bandwith issues) angry because as a consumer I hate being lied to or buying a "random performance" product I pay X I want X

 

So is no one else getting QS and Eng. Sample listed in their HWI result?

Welp, guess I'll just tighten my timings, I have no idea what it'll do at 3600MHz, but on my 2700 I had it running at 14-14-14-34 or so, without ever trying better. So I'm guessing I can go at least one lower on all my current timings.

All this may be a little bit disappointing, but I have a feeling the vast majority of us are happy overall. I would have absolutely never paid for a 9900K, and refuse to buy new motherboards just because fat business man Intel, who won't feed the orphanage properly, demands it. I bought a high end board, cooler, and RAM, fully expecting to use it all with a Zen 2 chip, and here I am with the results I wanted more or less. Not being stuck in a literal monopoly feels good man.

Edit: I realized after writing this that it's a bit ambiguous. The mobo/RAM/cooler I mention were from my previous build, as in I expected to be able to just swap out the CPU unlike an Intel build.

 

Considering the bad press that Intel is receiving now god forbid for them to not reach the advertised speed....

 

That is a known bug in the software, I believe.

My Ryzen 2600 hits the advertised boost, I'm really happy with my purchase last month.
Now fingers crossed Ryzen 4000 still supports AM4! If not, I'll upgrade to Ryzen 3000 next year.

 

no scientific method, not valid results. Without valid results the cause cannot be identified, nor any legal actions can start.

 

Yes he does. Results are verified via HWinfo.

Whether it be the stock ryzen cooler or an aftermarket one, these chips should hit boost frequencies no matter what.

It's a sad day when a heatwave prevents you from running a CPO at stock speeds.

And i'm sure plenty of AMD fanboys added results to skew things as well. Based on their overly vocal nature, i'd wager more false submissions came from them. I don't think most Intel owners care enough to take the time out of our day to submit a troll measurement.

 

Update your HWinfo64,you will get prod unit

 

Where are those young and naive fan boys defending the Amd trade mark? Stating that Amd is behaving better than Nvidia and Intel?
Aren't you mates hiding right?
There is no good company out there, everyone wants your money and everyone is trying to brain washing you. First rule.