28 thoughts on “AMD updates Ryzen 3000 specifications to clarify that advertised boost clocks are only achievable under “nominal” conditions.”

  1. I’m not sure why you think this is worth posting, especially with norminal in quotes, unless you don’t know / are not sure what nominal means in technical specifications ?

    > “Nominal conditions define your standard and let you see that you are operating within acceptable limits.”

    It just means in layman terms “under normal working conditions”, eg if you don’t cool your processor properly it will throttle and won’t go to its highest clock. That’s the same as pretty much any CPU out there.

  2. i’m glad i didnt bite for that false advertising.

    ​

    i’m gladly waiting till ps5 and next xbox releases before upgrading my computer/

    ​

    right now i’m 100% fine with my overclocked 4.4 5820k.

  3. I see what you’re trying to do here but there’s no conspiracy. AMD aren’t short changing you and they’re not falsely advertising anything. It’s a simple update.

    There are a hundred benchmarks out there now and thousands of people using these CPU’s. If someone wasn’t get clocks as advertised then we would’ve known about it within days of their release.

    Hell, the fucking reviewers and benchmarkers would’ve caught it. This rewording is probably just to let the layman know they can’t just whip in their CPU and run their PC in an oven and expect those clocks.

    Though if I’m wrong about any of this then please correct me.

  4. Well yeah, if it was 100* F in my apartment i wouldn’t expect the boost to work very well.

    If i had total shit air flow through my case i wouldn’t expect the boost to work very well.

    If the heatsink compound i used was shit, boost wouldn’t work very well.

    All these scenarios contribute to a situation that is not nominal.

    ​

    Intel CPU’s will also not boost to a high clock speed if you fuck stupid shit up and create an non-nominal environment.

    ​

    ​

    Jesus Christ, grow the fuck up and stop trying to pick something apart that is an obvious “well duh” level statement.

  5. To avoid being sued no doubt, but it wouldn’t really stop anyone as a judge/jury would see this as pretty blatant covering up of false/missleading advertising.

    They shouldn’t get a pass here to be honest.

    And slapping “nominal conditions” on with no explanation as to what that means makes this whole update just as pointless and confusing.

  6. Specs should have included a nominal single sustained, single burst, all core sustained and all core burst boost clocks because max boost tells you next to nothing about how the chip will behave.

  7. What happened to a rated speed and that was it? Anything over that was owner’s discretion and responsibility. If I want to take a 3.8Ghz processor and OC it to 5Ghz (if it can take it), great. Why do any of these companies advertise “boost”?

    Something else I don’t get, why in the hell do we need software to control a processor? WTF? Next thing I know, someone is going to tell me I need software to get the rated 800+ watts out of my power supply, or else it will get crippled to 500 watts. Good grief.

    /ignorant rant

  8. I don’t understand what the fuck is going on in the comments.

    AMD added some basic clarification to their product pages and people are talking about false advertising and shit. Did I miss something ?

  9. OK, if anyone here thinks you’ll sustain boost clock on a stock cooler, that is stupid. Intel can’t sustain boost clock on a stock cooler, and nor can AMD. If the stock cooler could sustain boost clock, it would be the base clock.

  10. *Witty Cortana voice*: Left out that little detail, did they?

    I’m still considering the 3950X next month because based on existing chip benchmarks, to be fair, it’s looking like it’ll be an all-around multitasking beast but the fact chips were not conventionally boosting to advertised speeds have felt deceptive and thus a bit of a turn-off.

  11. It’s a bugged BIOS version, so you all can quit it with the conspiracy theories. AGESA 1.0.0.2 boosts just fine, 1.0.0.3 and it’s subversions do not. This is a new processor architechture, early adopter issues are to be expected. Wait a month for the fix and chill. This has nothing to do with thermals or OCing, most CPUs on most boards are just hard locked to something lower than their advertised boost clock currently.

  12. The chips are out, they have been fully tested at this point. This is not a big deal for me. The performance is there. Good thing they did this, though, more information is always better.

  13. While this may be true for some of the X-series parts, I am having no trouble at all with my 3600 boosting to the advertised 4.2 Ghz boost ALL CORE on a regular basis (at totally stock settings, no PBO).

    I think the reality is that this chips are extremely sensitive to motherboard power delivery and thermals, so given that I have a pretty good board (Asus Prime X370 PRO) and a great cooler (NH-D15) I’m just not experiencing the issues that others are reporting, which I have a feeling are mostly on lower-tier boards with less capable coolers. (Not trying to shame those people, hope I don’t come off that way.)

    I realize that running on a higher-end board with a $90 cooler means that the argument for the 3600 as a “value” part disappears. But I’m just trying to share my experience.

  14. AMD fanboys –

    > You have to factor in the price of the CPU Cooler if you are buying Intel! It isn’t cheaper!!

    also AMD fanboys in this thread

    > Well yeah – who uses a stock cooler lol

  15. Well even in favorable conditions, I left my PC on at night middle of winter with all the doors/windows open and it was 7c inside 20c cpu temp and still hasn’t boosted to advertised.

  16. My personal bet

    since they went with MCMs, it means that they are relying on “golden chiplets” for max boost, and that they are few and far in between for production samples

    We actually seen this, in the Pentium D (and in the Core 2 Quad). Where when OCing, one of the cores / 2 cores / chiplets (I have no idea) will OC fine and dandy, while the other just cannot keep up.

    At least come today, there is turbo per core, but in this case what is likely needed is knowing which core “can” do the faster speed while the other cores cannot.

    Something tells me this is the issue with the management software, that it doesn’t know which of the cores to pick to safely allow them to clock to the rated speed. With intel, since you can hit ~5 Ghz all core relatively easily, they can more or less say pick a core, any core, and it will do the max rated clockspeed. Then bin the crap out of the top i9-9900k to make sure it can hit 5 Ghz with stock volts, with the rest getting rejects (or different sku).

  17. Well I have been telling all my friends who want to exclusively game to still go for Intel and specifically 9700k which absolutely destroys everything in value for price.

    I am a certified AMD fanboy who used to have FX9590 in my old pc. I have a 3900x now because gaming is the secondary use of my rig. Guys don’t make bad choices because of brand loyalty I have done that and regretted it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *