4 ms·

>a lot of the chiplets sold as 3900X are not fast enough to hit the clocks advertised for 3900X Do you have some sort of source for this claim?

gwicks56 7y ago
every forum pretty much. If you have been interested in getting one, and following along with the launch this is not a controversial statement. It's not 100% sure its the chips fault though, bios issues are still running rampant nearly 5 weeks later, and each new bios is changing performance significantly. It will take a while before everyone knows exactly where they stand.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Forums are not reputable sources unless it is insiders leaking info that can be verified through other means.
  - pdpi 7y ago
    They might not be definitive sources, but they can definitely be the canary that triggers an investigation by somebody more authoritative. As it stands, this mine has some dead canaries.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      claim: > ...but one of the underlying problems here is chip quality supposed justification: > ...every forum pretty much That's hearsay not actual justification. And intel has a reputation for dirty play.
      - gwicks56 7y ago
        The justification was for the statement that chips aren't hitting their clocks. That is not a controversial statement.
paulmd 7y ago
der8auer has done extensive testing on multiple CPUs (he had 12 samples) and has discussed the topic. https://youtu.be/WXbCdGENp5I?t=119 https://youtu.be/WXbCdGENp5I?t=119 A lot of reviewers have noted similar things, but often are working with singular samples and didn't want to make too much of a stink without more data, but the problem is widespread. Out of all of der8auer's CPUs, only one hit its advertised boost clocks, and it was one of the lower-end CPUs with a less ambitious target to hit. It may be a problem with early AGESA firmware, and silicon quality will definitely go up over time, but at least at this point in time AMD has certainly falsely advertised the clocks these CPUs are capable of achieving.

gwicks56 7y ago

every forum pretty much. If you have been interested in getting one, and following along with the launch this is not a controversial statement. It's not 100% sure its the chips fault though, bios issues are still running rampant nearly 5 weeks later, and each new bios is changing performance significantly. It will take a while before everyone knows exactly where they stand.

jacquesm 7y ago
Forums are not reputable sources unless it is insiders leaking info that can be verified through other means.
- pdpi 7y ago
  They might not be definitive sources, but they can definitely be the canary that triggers an investigation by somebody more authoritative. As it stands, this mine has some dead canaries.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    claim: > ...but one of the underlying problems here is chip quality supposed justification: > ...every forum pretty much That's hearsay not actual justification. And intel has a reputation for dirty play.
    - gwicks56 7y ago
      The justification was for the statement that chips aren't hitting their clocks. That is not a controversial statement.

paulmd 7y ago

der8auer has done extensive testing on multiple CPUs (he had 12 samples) and has discussed the topic. https://youtu.be/WXbCdGENp5I?t=119 https://youtu.be/WXbCdGENp5I?t=119 A lot of reviewers have noted similar things, but often are working with singular samples and didn't want to make too much of a stink without more data, but the problem is widespread. Out of all of der8auer's CPUs, only one hit its advertised boost clocks, and it was one of the lower-end CPUs with a less ambitious target to hit. It may be a problem with early AGESA firmware, and silicon quality will definitely go up over time, but at least at this point in time AMD has certainly falsely advertised the clocks these CPUs are capable of achieving.