Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Sep 10, 2019.
@jwb1 What are you on about? Seems to work fine on my end:
You're loving every minute of this. Every time that alert pops up red, you get a big grin. I wish I had that kind of free time.
Mamma Mia, ABBA-wrong. ABBC is correct. Then in a few months time it becomes ABBCC. and then finally ABBCCC before D enters the picture.
i would hope judging people for the job they do violates some forum or common sense rule.
Is not about blocking for opinions, is the content.
I come here for some type of content and this back and forth about marketing is just distracting.
I do not have you blocked, i blocked just some rude people, but i can assure people block for the spam more than the opinions.
I'd call this speculation, sorry
What makes you so sure the voltage tables adjusted downward are linked to some concern about reliability?
There's a chance yes but I'm more inclined to think they upped the voltages at launch to be on the safe side.
Is likely as well that over extensive testing they found out even the worst bin can keep up the same clocks with less volts.
The ASUS engineer just expressed his opinion, can't be taken seriously into account.
Even so, if AMD was concerned about reliability and this new AGESA really can boost the clock up with less voltage, means they underestimated their own cpu!
Which is a very good thing in my opinion.
don't care about the up to clock because with my current installed apps I always have 4+ cores being used so I'm probably never going to see it other than in a fresh install of windows
but as a (hopefully) future customer of AMD my main concern was the differences between motherboards, with specific needs (I have 10 usbs connected I need 10Gbit a TB3 card etc...) I can't be limited to motherboard X and knowing that with my motherboard choice I actually lose performance is just unacceptable
thanks for the picture, it stills feels wrong to see cores with different clocks at the same time current time, so strange....but I guess it's a good thing, it will take time for me to accept this I think lol I like my "reassuring" flat clock lines on Intel
I'm 99% sure turbo core is a technology specific to APUs and it isn't responsible for boosting with Zen - regardless the point is the third line here.
The complaint that I and other owners of Zen 2 processors had was AMD released/reviewed a processor with a firmware that readily hit the maximum boost clocks - then after launch they released a bios where for some of us (according to one dataset 94% of 3900x owners) were no longer able to hit that clock speed at all. When this complaint was first brought up multiple people defended AMD by saying "well AMD says it's "up to" the max boost clock" - which to me is a terrible argument to make. AMD only lists two clocks - base and maximum boost. By that logic if my single core boost speed on my 3900x capped out at 3.9Ghz (100mhz over base) then you could say the same "well you're not guaranteed maximum boost clocks, because it says "up to" - but regardless to all that, it doesn't say "up to" anywhere - it didn't have any clarification. Then AMD added a clarification that said "under nominal conditions you'll see this number" - but a whole swath of people didn't see those numbers under any conditions - under watercooling on $700 motherboards with a billion power phases. So they added more clarifications and like I said and you seem to agree with - in the past all processors, Intel/AMD alike were capable of hitting their maximum listed boost frequency. So when this processor comes along - hits that frequency at time of review but doesn't when the product is at my door, it's like eh - the marketing is wrong and it doesn't feel right to me.
Honestly, for me it builds on a lot of frustrating things I find with this whole mentality for AMD in general - here is where I kind of agree with @jwb1 , is that many people, here and other communities, as a whole seemingly try to hand-wave away issues with AMD products. That mindset ultimately leads to situations like this, like Netflix 4K playback on AMD Vega GPUs, like the Fury X VRAM situation, entire features missing from Vega, etc where AMD essentially gets a free pass on misleading or outright false marketing. Bringing these topics up results in a bunch of people coming out and saying stuff like "well what do you need that feature for anyway" "well it says "max boost clocks" so that means "up to"" etc. For example the Netflix 4K - AMD specifically said they were bringing 4K Netflix playback to Vega GPUs, nearly two years ago and they still haven't done it yet - I occasionally see posts on /r/amd and other places where people ask and are met with this blase attitude - "upgrade your GPU" or "you probably can't notice the difference on your XX" monitor anyway" "It's not AMDs problem it's Microsoft" - it's like wtf, some people may have bought this product under the guise that it could/eventually would play 4K movies.
Even on here with this boost clock situation users like @BReal85 were arguing that "the boost clocks don't matter because the performance increase of 100-300mhz is essentially non-existent" and these positions are essentially deemed as acceptable when multiple people repeat them and mods allow them, similar positions of just downplaying the issue are held. I was told multiple times that the reason why I couldn't hit 4.6Ghz on my 3900x must be a configuration issue, that I wasn't guaranteed that clock speed anyway, that the performance delta between the speed I was getting and 4.6Ghz didn't matter. And now, partially thanks to the community feedback/reporting/small amount of outrage - AMD releases a fix and I'm able to see that 4.6Ghz. It makes me wonder if people had the same outcry about 4K Netflix would AMD have tried harder to fix it? Probably - but again, downplayed and forgotten.
I completely understand what you mean, so am I. I've been used to setting a specified all-core OC and just run that coming from Intel and all. Here it doesn't really work the same way but personally I feel like I've gotten a good CPU that is a nice upgrade from my old CPU plus I'm happy to support a company that wants to make leaps instead of small insect jumps like Intel does. I also understand that the Ryzen 3000 isn't for everyone but I'm sure it can only get better.
For the record I've done an all-core OC to 4400MHz which worked just fine in games. But I don't think I could go higher than this. On the other hand everyone speaks greatly about per CCX OC and I'm sure that would work as well.
Here with my 3900x reach even above the factory boost! 4625mhz
This cpu is amazing
I'm happy you are happy and got lucky. And we do know that this problem AMD is having does not affect everyone. It isn't like it everyone who buys doesn't reach what they said or more. The case here is that everyone should at least reach what is advertised and sadly a lot just are not.
This. This is what bugs the crap out of me more than AMD marketing. Its the userbase who blindly defend them in some cases with absurd reasoning. Like when Destiny 2 was crashing with the new CPUs. Some people here were literally saying it was not a big deal because Destiny 2 isn't a popular game because now they offer part of their game as free to play. Like, in what world does anyone defend a company like that. Its utter nonsense. They did of course fix it, but for people to say, ah no big, deal, Destiny 2 is not a big enough game. Come on.
Definitely will agree with this. I like AMD, but as far as launches go they need to improve, and people giving them a pass on that won't ever fix their situation.
But as far as the Destiny 2 issue goes, that was only on Linux and affected less than 1%. So it wasn't such a widespread issue, while I say AMD has problems with launches Zen 2 and Navi had a fairly decent launch compared to what they've done before(ahem Radeon VII launch oof).
I don't think so - the same issue was the root cause of problems in Linux and Destiny 2 but Destiny 2 didn't work on Windows - it wasn't specific to Destiny 2 running on Linux.
And yeah new processor launches, especially on a new architecture are going to have issues - I don't really expect AMD to test all software. I don't expect AMD to launch flawless firmware out of the gate, but I also don't expect people try to downplay the problems because it either A. Doesn't effect them or B. They have some weird fan loyalty to the company.
This happens with phone launches too - where a subset of users will experience a problem.. for example the Pixel 2 launch was plagued with screen issues that only effected a subset of phones. Held at certain angles the color would tint significantly - when users would try to report it on reddit, hopefully for google to acknowledge the problem, other users who either weren't bothered by the significant tint or had phones that didn't tint as poorly would essentially write off their complaints as a non-issue. When I'm paying nearly $1000 for a phone or $600 for a processor I want it to function properly. I'm willing to acknowledge that production/firmware/etc problems happen but I want the company to at least acknowledge those problems and they often won't unless there is public outcry. When other people downplay those problems it's kind of a slap in the face - especially when those users don't even have the product in question or aren't experiencing the issue.
Turbo core traditionally has been about CPUs specifically. And even then, go to a product page for Zen2 and click on the "Max Turbo Frequency" and it'll describe it as "Turbo Core":
Putting semantics aside, the point is, the boost clocks (regardless of what processor you have or the marketing name) are unarguably something that adapts based on things like temperature and power. Base clocks are what you are guaranteed, determined by the advertised TDP (and even then, I never heard any brand state a guarantee like that). Not even Intel guarantees their max boost clocks. Why else do you think they provide us with those puny heatsinks, despite the fact they obviously can't maintain the boosts? What's the point of having boost clocks at all if they were guaranteed?
The only issue here is that the Zen2 firmware wasn't well-polished, where sometimes the CPU couldn't reach the max boost clock regardless of whether you had nominal conditions. I agree that's a problem and should be addressed; but AMD acknowledged it and was working on it. Had AMD ignored this or dismissed the problem, then people would have a right to be outraged (especially those who are missing out on over 100MHz).
So really, my stance on the matter as it currently exists is "it's not a big deal". It's undeniably a problem, but not one to get in an uproar about.
Except, there were several reviewers who didn't hit max boost clocks. I don't deny that it's shady AMD decided to cherry-pick a BIOS, CPU, and possibly motherboard, but doesn't change the fact that some reviewers still had problems.
Again... why do you think there are 2 listed clock speeds? What's the point if both are guaranteed? Boosted clocks, regardless of brand or architecture, have always been about being under nominal conditions since they were first introduced. You are holding onto the phrasing of "up to" thing way too strongly, but the phrasing doesn't matter; the point is, it's still "up to". I'm not aware of any company that uses boost clocks that literally said "up to", but it's so obviously implied based on how boost clocks work.
I get it - it's annoying when people defend the brand tooth and nail when something is so clearly their fault. And to reiterate: for every customer who had nominal conditions yet couldn't reach the appropriate max boost, AMD was 100% at fault and should be held accountable. However, when this situation was first discovered, we didn't know for sure they were at fault, because the results were so mixed. There wasn't enough data to show that there was an obvious firmware issue. But, thanks to people like Der8aur, it's blatantly clear AMD has to fix something (which they did).
I agree with all of that*. To add to that, I find a lot of the antagonism of AMD fans against Intel to be irritating and unhealthy. Except for things that actually matter (like glitchy firmware), I personally haven't taken anything seriously AMD says for years, even when they actually deliver. As a small digression, as a Linux user, I tend to ignore promises that any company makes, since they rarely apply to me anyway lol.
Anyway, I get the impression you're lumping me in with these people. I understand why, but, even if this were Intel, I would be saying the same thing. In fact, I have actually defended Intel on multiple occasions for using their terrible heatsinks, for the very reason that those heatsinks won't guarantee you'll reach boost clocks. I don't believe Intel should be sued for their heatsinks, I don't find their marketing especially misleading, and I don't think anyone who uses those heatsinks has a right to complain that their CPU barely leaves base clocks.
So - I'm not defending AMD saying "well it's probably your fault" because even with mediocre cooling, everyone should be able to reach boost clocks for a brief moment (at least in a reasonable ambient room temperature). What I'm defending against is how you seem to think that, regardless of the firmware glitch, you are promised max boost clocks. You're not. There's nothing special, new, secret, sketchy, shady, or whatever adjective you want to use to describe the way Zen2 handles boost clocks. There's no marketing gimmicks behind it. It's dynamic, and that has always been the case before they had to clarify it. That has been the case before the CPU even existed. That has been the case ever since Intel introduced the concept of boost clocks.
* Again, max boost clock doesn't mean "up to"; it's just the speed limit of Turbo Core / Turbo Boost
Had the issue just been a matter of configuration or appropriate hardware (for power or cooling) I would agree that 100MHz is no big deal (300 is definitely too much no matter what; that's about 6% of the total speed). BReal85 is definitely one of the hardcore biased AMD fans, but to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he didn't know there was a firmware issue.
Whether or or not there was a firmware or configuration issue, I still don't think I'd get in an uproar over 100MHz when boosting a single core on an 8+ core CPU. It'd leave a bitter taste in my mouth, but at that point you're just bickering over principles. In fact, I think I even recall you saying you weren't put off that much by 100MHz.
As for an outcry fixing the 4K Netflix issue... I doubt it. It's a lot harder trying to write and justify a decoder for a proprietary platform that might not even affect the majority of their userbase, than it is to adjust some microcode (that affects 94% of the userbase). They should be held accountable for their promises, but it's obvious they hoped people would just forget they ever said it.
I'm not so sure it was less than 1%. To my recollection, it affected just about everyone who uses a default configuration of systemd, which is the vast majority of the Linux population. The issue is directly related to the same one Destiny 2 had - it was about the rdrand instruction being faulty. But, now that the instruction is disabled, the issue is basically "resolved". Not really in an ideal way, but, it's pretty obvious that rdrand wasn't very wide-spread.
omg, you filthy intel fanboy, how dare you insult our lord and master amd /s
the issue was about the chips barely even meeting their average advertised clockrate.
I haven't heard anything about that. I'm not saying you're wrong (I just simply haven't encountered that), but all the fuss I've been hearing about revolves around single-core boost clocks.
its not the rule of course, but a few people have had issues in my discord circle and are waiting on abba (smh that name) nervously.
I am sorry. Where might I have offended you with fanboyism?
He wasn't saying you were.
Its so hillarious reading some of the comments here. So, firstly i think the one thing both AMD and Intel can guarantee is the base clock which is why both their processors come with e.g @3.6 or @4ghz. If they do not guarantee that then sure a law suit would be in order. Now suing them for boost clocks regardless of how they advertised it is very shaky and thin at best. You wont win that lawsuit lol. This is because there are so many variables that need to be taken into account hence boost clocks are not always the same which as i mentioned earlier is another reason why both AMD and intel only guarantee the base clock. Now jwrb has shown some fanboyism here and its fine. It is good to be true to your chosen company or brand but bashing a company that is fixing a small mistake is bad. How about we talk about intel security threats, people can actually sue for that. People are actually suffering worse performance through those mitigations but does jwrb bash intel for it? I am defending AMD because if it was not for AMD, we would all be stuck on 4cores 8threads on the main stream indefinitely. Even at idle you hardly see one core on a cpu loaded because there are background tasks that uses your cpu and activates other cores so i would not say this is an issue that warrants a law suit. lol.