I completely agree. I had seen some of this with Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus, Der8auer, Reddit. This was a great summary with solid explanation behind it, a more helpful way to learn about the whole issue.
Now for the next issue - Hey, Ian is a doctor now, thinks he's better than all of us. Discuss... :) (yes I knew he had a doctorate already)
It sure is interesting that the **Chipzillah Propaganda Machine** has entered high gear/over-drive over the last several weeks after reports that the "Intel Apollo Lake CPUs May Die Sooner Than Expected" ... https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-apollo-lak...
Thanks Ian, helpful article with good explanations! Question: The "binning by expected lifespan" caught my eye. Could you do another nice backgrounder on how overclocking affects lifespan? I believe many out there believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch. So, how fast does a CPU (or GPU) degrade if it gets pushed (overclocked and overvolted) to the still-usable limit. Maybe Ryan can chime in on the GPU aspect, especially the many "factory overclocked" cards. Thanks!
I've been speaking to people about this to see if we can get a better understanding about manufacturing as it relates to expected product lifetimes and such. Overclocking would obviously be an extension to that. If something happens and we get some info, I'll write it up.
Aside from overclocking, it'd be interesting to know if the expected lifetime is optimized with warranty times and if what we're seeing is a step forward on the planned obsolescence path.
It's sort of more important now than ever, because with 8 core being the new norm soon - we'll probably see even longer refresh cycles as workloads catch up to saturate the extra performance available. And limiting product lifetime would help curb those longer than profitable refresh cycles.
Electron migration is generally considered to be the result of momentum transfer from the electrons, which move in the applied electric field, to the ions which make up the lattice of the interconnect material.
Intuitively speaking, raising the frequency would proportionally increase the number of pulses over a given time, but the momentum (number of electrons) transferred per pulse would remain the same. Conversely, raising the voltage would proportionally increase the momentum (number of electrons) per pulse, but not the number of pulses over a given time. To make an analogy, raising the frequency is like moving your sandpaper faster while raising your voltage is like using coarser grit sandpaper at the same speed.
You might assume that if the total number of electrons are the same, then the wear will be the same? However, there is a certain amount of force required to dislodge an atom (or multiple atoms) from the interconnect material lattice. Though the concept is different, you can simplistically think of it like stationary friction. Increasing the voltage increases the force (momentum) from each pulse which could overcome this resistance where nominal voltages may not be enough. Also, increasing voltage has a larger affect on heat produced than increasing frequency. Adding heat energy into the system may lower the required force to dislodge the atom(s). If the nominal voltage is unable or only intermittently able to exceed the required force, then raising the frequency will have little effect compared to raising the voltage. That said, continuous strain will probably weaken the resistance over time, but it is likely that this still less significant than increasing voltage. Based on this, I would expect (read my opinion) four things: 1) Electron migration becomes exponentially worse the farther you exceed specifications (Though depending on where your initial durability is it may not be problematic) 2) The rate of electron migration is not constant. Holding all variables constant, it likely increases over time. That said, there are likely a lot of process specific variables that determine how quickly the rate increases. 3) Increasing voltage has a greater affect on electron migration than frequency. Increasing frequency alone may be considered far more affordable from a durability standpoint than increases that require significant voltage. 4) Up to a point, better cooling will likely reduce electron migration. We are already aware that increased heat physically expands the different materials in the semiconductor at different rates. It is likely that increased heat energy in the system also makes it easier to dislodge atoms from their lattice. Reducing this heat build-up should lessen the effect here.
Some or all of these may be partially or fully incorrect, but this is where my out of date intuition from limited experience in silicon fabrication takes me.
Thanks Ian! And, as mentioned, would also like to hear from you or Ryan on the same for GPUs. With lots of former cryptomining cards still in the (used) market, I often wonder just how badly those GPUs were abused in their former lifes.
My hypothesis is that CPUs are more likely to outlive their usefulness long before a hardware failure. CPUs failing due to overclocking is not something we hear much about - I'm thinking it's effectively a non-issue. My i5-3570K has been overclocked at 4.2GHz on air for 7 years without fault. I don't think it has seen any time over 60C. That said, as a CPU, it has nearly exhausted its usefulness in gaming scenarios due to lack of both speed and cores.
What would cause a CPU to "burn out" that hasn't already been accounted for via throttling, auto-shutdown procedures, etc.?
Thermal cycling causes CPU damage. Different materials expand at different rates when they heat, eventually this fatigue builds up and parts begin to crack. The estimated failure rate for a CPU that never reaches above 60°C is 0.1% ( https://www.dfrsolutions.com/hubfs/Resources/servi... ). So, in that case, you are correct that your CPU will be just fine.
But, now CPUs are reaching 100°C, not 60°C. That higher temperature range doubles the temperature range the CPUs are cycling through. Also, with turbo kicking on/off quickly, the CPUs are cycling more often than before. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:AN...
Simple solution: run BOINC 24/7, keeps it at 100°C all the time! I'm sure this isn't why my Surface Pro isn't bulging out of its case on three sides...
The CPU temperature sensors have changed type and location. Old sensors were closer to the surface temperature just under the heatsink (more of an average or single spot assumed to be the hottest). Now its the highest of multiple sensors built into the silicon and indicates higher temperatures for the same power&area than before. There is always a temperature gradient from the hot spots to where heat is radiated.
For me, the key statement in your comment is that your Sandy Bridge i7 rarely if ever went above 60 C. That is a perfectly reasonable upper temperature for a CPU. Many current CPUs easily get 50% hotter, and that's before any overclocking and overvolting. For GPUs, it even worse; 100 - 110 C is often considered "normal" for "factory overclocked" cards.
I'll take the opportunity to free-ride eastcoast_pete's comment to second its content! :)
Awesome article Ian, this is the kind of stuff that brings me to AnandTech.
Also, in particular I found it fascinating to read about AMD's solution to electromigration - Zen seems to carry around a lot of surprises still! Adding to pete's ask re: overclocking vs. lifespan I'd be very interested to read more about how monitoring and counteracting the effects of electromigration actually works with AMD's current processors.
I used to have factory OCed GTX 580 (EVGA hydro model, bought when it was fresh new merchandise)... More than half of it's life time I was also running BOINC on it. Swapped for GTX 1080 when it was fresh new. So when replaced with faster card it was 5-6yrs old.
Out of this one case I guess unless you go extereme OC or fail otherwise (condensation on subambient, very bad airflow, wrongly fitted cooler etc. etc.) you'll sooner replace with new one anyway since the component will get to age where no OC saves it from being obsolete anyway.
Though I'd be curious about more reliable numbers as well.
Intel do not guarantee the turbo still it deliver well, AMD at least for now nope. Fix or not fix it is pretty clear actual 7nm processes are clearly slower than 14nm, nothing can change this. Are decades that a new process have always an higher drive current of the older one, this time this do not happen. Pretty impressive to see a server cpu with 20% lower ST performance only because the low power process utilized is unable to deliver a clock speed near 4Ghz, absurd thing considering that Intel 14nm LP gives 4GHz at 1V without struggles. Anyway.....this is the new world in upcomin years.
intel also does not guarantee your cpu will use only 95 watts when at max speed... whats your point ? cap that cpu at the watts intel specifies.. and look what happens to your performance.
My point power consumption is not a concern in actual desktop landscape only done of entusiasts with an SSD full of games, they want top ST perf at any cost, no matter 200 W of power consumption. Absolutely different is the story in mobile and server, but definitevely not in all workloads around.
They actually don't. Because no one other than the farmville level gamer is CPU bound. Everyone is GPU bound. The only exception is possibly people playing at 1080p (or less) and their framerates are 200-300 or more. There are no real situations where you will see any perceptible difference between the high end AMD or Intel CPU for gaming while using a modern discreet GPU.
The difference is buying AMD is cheaper, both the CPU and the platform, which has a longer lifetime by the way (AM4) and you get multicore performance that blows Intel away "for free".
I have seen reviews of demanding current generation gaming titles like Battlefield 5 in which reviewers definitely noted that the CPU level/and # of cores indeed influences the performance. I am not stating that this is always the case, but CPUs/cores can and do matter in a number of instances even if all you do is game, after running a kill all extraneous processes script.
I don't care if my CPU gets me 5 more FPS when I'm already hitting 200+ FPS, I care whether the darn thing doesn't A: Cook itself to death and B: Doesn't slow down when I'm hitting it with more tasks.
People have done the test, and you can too if you have an overclocking friendly PC. disable all but 1 core, and run it at 4GHZ, and see how well your PC performs. Then, enable 4 cores, and set them at 1GHZ, see how well the PC feels. It was seen that 4 cores at 1GHz was better than 1 core at 4ghz. The reality? More cores do more work. It's that simple.
You either don't pay electricity or are in a spot where the electricity cost of your computer doesn't factor into your monthly bill. Some people do care if a single part of their PC draws 200W of power. I certainly care, because the lower the wattage, I don't have to buy a super expensive UPS to power my device. Also, gaming is becoming more multi-threaded, so eventually, the ST performance won't matter anyways.
Gondalf, sorry but nope.. for some how much power a cpu uses is a concern, specially when one goes to choose HSF to cool that cpu, and they buy one, only to find that it isnt enough to keep it cool enough to run at the specs intel says.. and labeling a cpu to use 95 watts, and have it use 200 or more, is a HUGE difference. but you are speaking for your self, on the ST performance, as Xyler94 mentioned.
How about no. 200w for a few FPS sounds like a terrible trade off unless you are cooking eggs on your nipples with the 120 F room you are sitting in after that PC is running for 1 hour.
" Pretty much the only people left OCing CPUs are epeen wavers with more money than sense" that a pretty bold statement. i know quite a few people who overclock their cpus, because intel charged too much for the higher end ones, so they had to get a lower tier chip. with zen, thats not the case as much any more as they have switched over to amd, because by this time, they would of had to get a new mobo any way, because intels upgrade paths are only 2, maybe 3 years if they are lucky. dont " need " and AIO, as there are some pretty good air coolers out there, and some, dont like the idea of water, or liquid in their comps :-)
Sorry, here's where I'll have to disagree with you.
You'll never overclock an i3 to i5/i7 levels. If my choices were between an overclocking i3, with a Z series board, or a locked i5 with an H series board, I'd choose the i5 in a heartbeat, as that's just generally better. Overclocking will never make up the lack of physical cores.
So I agree, mostly these days overclocking is reserved for A: People with e-peens, and B:, people who genuinely need 5ghz on a single core... which are fewer than those who can utilize the multi-threaded horsepower of Ryzen... so yeah,
Does it deliver well? I see plenty of people on the Intel reddit not hitting advertised turbo speeds. That's considering they are using $50+ CPU coolers as well.
"Pretty impressive to see a server cpu with 20% lower ST performance only because the low power process utilized is unable to deliver a clock speed near 4Ghz, absurd thing considering that Intel 14nm LP gives 4GHz at 1V without struggles."
What CPU are you talking about? Even AMD's 64 core monster has damn near the same IPC as the Intel Xeon 8280 (thanks to Zen 2 IPC improvements) and that CPU has LESS THEN HALF THE CORES and only consumes 20w more. The Intel CPU also costs almost twice as much. Only a moron brings up single threaded performance in a server chip conversation anyways, it's one of the least important metric for server chips. AMD's new EPYC chip crushes Intel in Core count, TCO, power consumption, and security. Everything that is important to server.
You do realize that the clock speed does not depend only by the process, right? Your comment sounds like that that of a disgruntled Intel fanboy trying to put AMD in under a bar light. For 25MHz.
Absolute codswallop. AMD are getting 100-300Mhz more on their peak clock speeds for Zen2 with this first-gen 7nm process tech than they were seeing with Zen+ 12nm (and nearly 400Mhz more than Zen on 14nm), so nothing about that implies that 7nm is slower than 14nm. Intel's architecture and process tech are not remotely comparable to AMD's, and we don't know what is the primary limiting factor on Zen clockspeeds.
Not sure why you're claiming lower ST performance on the server parts either - Rome is better in every single regard than its predecessors, and it's better pound-for-pound than anything Intel will be able to offer in the next 12-18 months.
I see a tempest in a teapot on the stove of a person who is busy splitting hairs at the kitchen table. It would be more interesting to calculate how much energy and time was expended on the issue to see if the performance uplift from the fix will offset the global societal cost of all the clamoring this generated. For that, I suppose you'd have to know how many Ryzen chips are actually doing something productive as opposed to crunching at video games.
The idea of buying cheaper hardware for non-work needs sticks here. Less investment means less worry about maximizing your return on your super-happy-fun-box and less heartburn over a little bit of clockspeed on a component that plays second fiddle to GPU performance when it comes to entertainment anyway.
Ultimately in the end it isn't MHz that counts, it is observed performance in the software that you care about. That's why we read reviews, and why the review industry is so large.
If performance X was good enough, does it matter if it was achieved at 4.5GHz or 4.425GHz? Not really. But if the CPU manufacturer is using it as a primary competitive comparison metric (rather than a comparative metric with their other SKUs) then it has to be considered, like in this article.
It is sad that MHz is still a major metric in the industry, although now Intel IPC is similar to AMD IPC, it is actually kinda relevant.
What I'd like is better CPU power draw measurements versus what the manufacturer says. Because TDP advertising seems to be even more fraught with lies/marketing than MHz marketing! Obviously most users don't care about 10 or 20% extra power draw at a CPU level, as at a system level it will be a tiny change, but it's when it is 100% that it matters.
IMO, I'd like TDPs to be reported at all core sustained turbo, not base clocks. Sure, have a typical TDP measurement as well as the more information the better, but don't hide your 200W CPU under a 95W TDP.
Personally, I feel that AMD should have 2 numbers for the max frequency of the CPU; "Boost Clock" and "Burst Clock". Assuming that you have adequete cooling and power delivery, the boost clock would be sustainable indefinitely on a single core, while the burst clock would be the peak frequency that a single core on the CPU can reach, even if it's just for a few ms.
I could see them eventually going in this direction considering Navi already has three clocks: Base, Gaming, and Boost. The first two would be guaranteed, the last not so much.
Yeah a Three Scenario figures sound best. It's easiest for consumers to understand. They should apply it for their GPUs and CPUs, and for all products ranging from Mobile to Server.
Whatever.. It's fine no matter what. It's just .. I mean .. why couldn't they just write 4.35 GHz on the box or whatever. The performance is there. No need to try and over-exaggerate clock.
It feels like a battle between engineers and marketing, and marketing got to write the clock on the box in the end.
IMHO AMD made a mistake anyway trying to extract every little bit of performance. Leave those last 3% to the overclockers - they aren't really relevant but come at the expense of quite a lot of efficiency.
This is an industry-wide thing (have a look at the mobile SoCs, e. g. Qualcomm, ...). They love rounding their frequency figures up, reality be damned!
Reminds me of the days of the AMD Athlon XP 2500+ Barton 1.833 GHz Socket A CPU's. They were faster IPC than Intel but people only paid attention to frequency which was misleading. AMD was trying to put the focus on overall performance per dollar.
The graphs on pages 2 and 3 tell you all you need to know. AMD just run there cpu's far to close to the limit and give you numbers that are higher then what is understood by boost (it would be like Intel advertising boost as 5.2 not 4.6).
It's deceptive really as the number does not mean the same thing as Intel's number. I am sure I'll get 20 replies saying how this is fine, but if it were Intel doing this then I bet the same people would be roasting Intel for this sort of miss-information.
first, AMD does not call it Turbo, like Intel does. It is Boost. The problem is you assuming that those are the same. Same as in legal speak, you have to go and look up the definition of what is claimed. Or keep every company accountable. As most of the time they add that trademark thingy, and in the end that just means that the company gets to set up the definition of what it is. SMT vs HT.
I can't believe anyone would make it all the way through such an informative article like this and then still post such an ignorant comment. The only reasonable conclusion is that you did not take the time to read it properly, because everything you said was discussed at length.
In the end, this doesn't change anything for those of us who read reviews and decided based on those if the performance in our workloads was acceptable for the price AMD was asking. But if your marketing is going to dumb the performance down to a (set of) number(s), then you will also have to deal with the complaints of people whose understanding doesn't go beyond those simple numbers. Looks like the "bigger number!" marketing we've seen with is finally starting to hurt companies.
It seems completely logical to me that boosting algorithms will become ever more refined to ensure optimal performance at all times. That's a good thing for all of us.
The so-called Bulldozer lawsuit was settled by the lawyers who brought the suit (not just by AMD, as is erroneously often implied), who agreed to take the money and run rather than chance the loss of their suit, ultimately, because AMD surely would have won, anyway. AMD agreed to the payout as it amounted to less money than it would have cost AMD to actually go all the way and win the suit--this is why companies settle spurious lawsuits--and is the only reason they do. Additionally, in writing, the suing attorney's agreed with AMD that AMD had done nothing wrong--no false advertising, etc. Whenever this "issue" *cough* is raised, it is never explained fully--with a sort of mindless "AMD did something wrong" emphasis. Of course, nothing about this *old* lawsuit has anything at all to do with the burst frequency issue which AMD recently corrected in the ABBA AGESA is distributed a week ago--so what is the purpose of mentioning a lawsuit that the suing attorney's have dropped and agreed with AMD that AMD had done nothing wrong?....;) Clearly, the suing attorneys believed they could not win, else they would not have agreed to such a tiny settlement, eh? Or agreed to signing a statement clearing AMD of any wrongdoing whatsoever. (There is something wrong with the civil system when this kind of garbage is allowed to clog up the courts, imo, but that's another issue entirely.)
I really don't understand why some people don't understand that "teething" issues with a new architecture release are common--and it doesn't matter whether AMD makes the CPU or Intel makes it--new architectures all demand a period of software adjustment--six months to a year is common for both companies when new architectures are released! I marvel that this needs explanation...;) It's been so long since Intel has shipped a ground-up new architecture, though, that likely few remember Intel-architecture teething problems. I hate to see all the red faces appearing when and if Intel ever makes it to 7nm with a new architecture....)
AMD has also made it clear that the AGESA bugs caused the loss of boost MHz, in all cases. They've surely fixed it--my 3600X boosts now like it did with AGESAs 1002/3 in bios releases for my x570Arus Master--and a tad faster--to 4.424GHz, instead of 4.401GHz. (Wowee...;)) Later AGESAs up through ABB cut max boost by ~125Mhz. Happy to report that has been remedied with the newer AMD AGESA ABBA bios for my x570 Master.
Yes! I really don't blame the starving lawyers quite as much as I blame the judges who greenlight spurious stuff like this. I mean, it creates the impression that either the judges don't understand the issues involved, or else that it's a racket with "everyone" hoping to share the ill-gotten gains...;) Because in the end--it's we the customers who pay for all of the spurious junk that isn't thrown out on day 1--just as much as if it was a direct tax. This reminds me so much of the infamous class-action suit they tried and failed to throw at the HDD makers a few years back. The lawyers alleged that everyone who bought a hard drive was "mislead" by false advertising because the HDD makers decided to call a "megabyte" 1,000,000 bytes instead of 1,024,000 bytes--*even though* all of the HDD makers posted that information not only in all their product advertising, but also on the HDD product boxes! The judge in that case was savvy enough to throw it out on Day 1, IIRC. In the Bulldozer case, of course, the lawyers will earn $6M-$8M (or more) of the $12M and the Bulldozer owners might be lucky to get $10 each....;) What a racket!...;)
Targon, not according to one person that comments on here, sunny cove is a new architecture, and is completely different then all the cpu's intel has made over the last 5 or so years.
but yea.. its time intel stopped milking the same architecture, and its customers, and came out with something that is actually new
"its time intel stopped milking the same architecture, and its customers, and came out with something that is actually new"
'architecture' is constrained by the Law's of God, aka maths, so once the 'best' has been found, that's it. IMHO, all these 'architectures' amount to: 1) pulling previously off-chip function on-chip 2) rearranging them to implement Cray's shorter wires 3) adding more transistors to make certain functions bigger
not really much 'architecture' progress to any of that. in any case, how much more 'architecture' does it take to do word processing, spreadsheets, and e-mail? you know, the Three Killer Apps of the PC?
once the best has been found ??? intel hasnt released a new architecture because they have had no reason to. but i bet now, with Zen, intel is doing just that, working on something that is actually new and not based on the same cpu we have had from them for the last 5 or so years.
Sunny Cove is about just as new as Zen2 compared to Zen+, if not more.
Only not "architecture" but "microarchitecture", architecture is the same Von Neumann prevalent since 1940s, or its Harvard variant prevalent since 1980s.
Thanks for the informative article. The modal frequency being so close to the rating on all those 3000-series chips, BEFORE the +25-50 MHz fix, means it's not even worth worrying about. As consumers it's good to be informed and keep an eye on the companies we buy from, but there's no conspiracy here. Just confusion.
You didn`t read the article obviously... these are not guaranteed. If you apply thermal paste and HSF pressure like an amateur, your results will not be in line with AMD numbers, but of course you will scream rip-off...
Will not scream, just it would be nice to have every little bit. With ABBA, that is the case, in the end I need good mobo, good cooling, some memory OC prooves and I do not have to worry about CPU OC as that is brought to maximum performance by itself already.
I feel there is one more aspect to this that wasn't fully addressed nor have seen it very addressed in discussions.
According to your article (which matches previous understanding) is that Intel (even if they won't guarantee it the boost speeds) will bin CPUs so that every core is capable of running at the listed turbo speeds. In your example every core can reach 4.6ghz for the 9600k.
While AMD with Zen is only binning one core as capable of reaching the boost speeds. Although you list a more likely typical example in your article does this not in theory mean that a 3600x which can only reach 4.4ghz on a single core, while all other 7 can only hit 3.8ghz will pass (even if statistically such a CPU is extremely unlikely)? Or is their binning actually tighter then this but not disclosed anywhere?
This has been one of my concerns with respect the this type of situation going forward. It seems like there needs to be more disclosure/data points on binning requirements going forward.
Could you highlight what the nebulous "limits of the silicon" are? I have noticed, that in low current (core) work loads with Zen 2, the performance seems to be fixed. I'm not reaching any temperature, EDC, TDC or PPT boundary, but changing the scalar, increasing fmax, or increasing the aforementioned limits. It seems something else is limiting the processor's ability to boost, but there is no clear indication what that is. I have observed the Stilt mention the Fitness Monitoring Tool (FIT) as a voltage limit baked into the silicon. Zen 2, tend to be at this limit, and it simply will not go higher regardless of what you set PPT, TDC and EDC at. Do you have any additional information on this limiter? It does seem fundamentally different for overclockers. The voltage limit on boosting seems to be reached before thermal limits, meaning that Zen2 CPUs with the stock cooler boost the same as those with far better heat dissipation, at least in lightly threaded workloads. I guess this is a good thing for users overall, as everyone gets the same performance out of the box, but jarring for enthusiasts who are used to seeing much high numbers on their systems. I noticed the delta between the bottom 5th percentile and upper 95th percentile of the 3900X on userbenchmark was 12.4%. Incredibly tight, and demonstrates that there likely isn't much to ring out of these systems.
More specifically, I was referring to this test from the article.
"Because of the new binning strategy – and despite what some of AMD's poorly executed marketing material has been saying – PBO hasn't been having the same effect, and users are seeing little-to-no benefit. This isn’t because PBO is failing, it’s because the CPU out of the box is already near its peak limits, and AMD’s metrics from manufacturing state that the CPU has a lifespan that AMD is happy with despite being near silicon limits."
What silicon limits exactly? AMDs marketing material has always indicated that a CPU will boost until it reaches either the PPT, TDC, EDC, or thermal limits. If none of those are met, it will boost until Fmax, which it simply will not exceed. Now, in a single threaded workload, the user is almost never at a PPT,TDC, EDC or thermal limit, and seem to be just shy of Fmax anyway. Now, if the user enables the auto-oc feature and extends Fmax by 100, 150 or 200MHz...nothing happens. The identical clockspeed and performance are observed. I see the same thing happen in multicore on my 3900X. I normally hits the EDC and PPT limits under standard boosting. If I remove them, with precision boost overdrive, it does boost higher, but not by much. It again seems to stop a certain point. Again, EDC, TDC and PPT motherboard limits are not met, I am certainly not at Fmax, and the chip is under 70C, but it stops nonetheless. Nothing I can do makes it boost further. "The Stilt", seems to mention the silicon fitness monitoring feature (FIT) in his "Matisse Strictly Technical" post on overclock.net. FIT appears to be a specific voltage limit for high and low current the CPU cannot exceed. This has never been included in AMDs documentation, and would help explain why the processor's stop boosting when according to AMD's own documentation, they should keep on going. So what exactly is this feature, and how does it work? I think that answer would do a great deal to alleviate user confusion.
>> "To a certain extent, Intel already kind of does this with its Turbo Boost Max 3.0 processors... [the] difference between the two companies is that AMD has essentially applied this idea chip-wide and through its product stack, while Intel has not, potentially leaving out-of-the-box performance on the table."
What does this mean? What has Intel not done that AMD has done? Both have variable max frequency per core. Both expose this concept to the OS. Both rely on the same Window scheduler. What are you alluding to is different here?
It seems to me that Intel's HEDT platform with Turbo 3.0 is very much similar to AMD's implementation in the sense of having certain cores run faster. @Ian how is performance left on the table for Intel here? (Intel non HEDT is obviously stuck on Turbo 2.0 which is at a disadvantage)
The majority of Intel chips are multiplier locked, so there isn't any real overclocking ability to speak of. It is only the k chips that users can overclock. AMD on the other hand, has PBO which is more advanced when it comes down to it.
"What does this mean? What has Intel not done that AMD has done?"
Intel picks the maximum 'turbo' bin as the lowest that any core can achieve. AMD picks their maximum boost bin as the highest that any single core could achieve. 'Turbo 3.0' pre-selected two cores that were able to clock above the all-core turbo bin and allowed them to clock higher for lightly threaded workloads.
Is this WSL tool available for us to use? I'd love to have a better view of what speeds my cores could hit with a tool like this. In fact, I'd probably use it to map out all 12 cores (disabling 11 of them at a time). Obviously even that wouldn't quite give the whole picture, but it would be an interesting baseline map to have for my 3900x chip.
I miss the old days when I would just push the Turbo frequency on my 286 and the CPU would go from 10MHz to 12MHz. Sure occassionally chip poppped off from the Glue but it was totally worth it to play Dune 2.
"Turbo, in this instance, is aspirational. We typically talk about things like ‘a 4.4 GHz Turbo frequency’, when technically we should be stating ‘up to 4.4 GHz Turbo frequency’."
This is true, but EXACTLY the problem. The marketing teams at AMD, Intel and everyone else KNOW that when you see "3.6 GHz / 4.5 GHZ Turbo" written on a box, your eye falls to the second, larger number, and that's what sticks in your head.
Why should the consumer know that some of the numbers on the box (core count, base freq) are guaranteed, but some (turbo) aren't? That makes no sense and is borderline deceptive. And this doesn't just matter to the fairly small, tech savvy group of people who buy a processor alone in a box - here's how Dell lists the processor on its base config XPS 13 laptop when you go to "Tech Specs & Customization"
"8th Generation Intel® Core™ i5-8265U Processor (6M Cache, up to 3.9 GHz, 4 cores)"
Dell doesn't even bother LISTING the base frequency, even when you click to get more detail - how's a consumer supposed to gauge how fast their processor is? (To their credit, Apple, HP and Lenovo all list base frequency and "up to" the turbo).
Turbo is a great technology for getting the most out of limited silicon, but both AMD and Intel are, while not QUITE being untruthful, certainly trying to put their products in as good of a light as possible.
I'm looking at the retail box for my 3900x right now. The only thing it says about frequencies is "4.6 GHz Max Boost, 3.8 GHz Base". There is no "up to" verbiage anywhere on the box. From a FTC advertising standpoint, the 4.6GHz should be guaranteed even if only under nuanced "limited single-core" and "with specific but reasonable motherboard, cooling, and software" scenarios.
While this is a very good article and I generally have very few issues with AMD's new approach here, I'm of the belief that legally, a 3900x should be guaranteed to hit 4.6GHz when in a specific-yet-real-world scenario. I don't mean $100 mobos with $25 coolers should be able to hit it. But a better-than-budget x570 motherboard using the stock cooler with proper updates on a supported OS should absolutely hit 4.6GHz with certain loads. Otherwise, I think there's a real legal issue here.
All this said, I am now seeing 4.6GHz from time to time on my 3900x with ABBA on my x570 Aorus Master, so we're good here. Never saw higher than 4.575 before ABBA.
I think the perception that people have about turbo frequencies (based on Intel experience) is that buying a high-end system with DIY water-cooling would lead to near max or over max clock frequencies. Since you can buy a lower-end AMD motherboard and average cooling solution and get the same results, this leads to disappointment from the end-user. With Intel, it felt worth it to spend the extra money in some cases. With AMD, it has me re-evaluating how I view building a PC. I have still not upgraded from my 4770K at 4.7GHz because it feels like we need more settling on the AMD side and need to see what INtel brings out by year's end.
At the end of the day, even though I know we aren't guaranteed turbo frequencies, Intel has spoiled us and if you are going to post a number on your box, there should be a way to hit it in some cases wtih some CPUs.
AMD's four visits totaling little 1/16th of a second each of a single core at advertised boost clocks within a 45 - 100 secnd period are most impressive! :)
If I buy a processor that's advertised as being able to reach a certain clockspeed, I expect the individual example of that product to be able to reach that speed - not that there are some other units marketed under the same name that may be able to. Better to under-advertise than over-advertise.
IMNHO it's much nonsense over nothing. No problem with CPU turbo mode IME. Yes there was a 25 MHz drop with the first chipset update to fix overly sensitive load sensing that kept some CPUs at max vcore but other than that no issues for me and no malice or fraud by AMD.
FYI - AMD settled the bogus CPU core count lawsuit as it was cheaper to settle a frivolous lawsuit than fight it in U.S. courts where Jackpot Justice prevails by criminals. Pour a cup of coffee on your crotch in a moving vehicle and become an instant millionaire. It's the American way...
Never bothered to read on this issue, surprising Andntech did. I guess its quiet right now in the tech world. This topic is of little value considering that even Intel's turbo boost speeds are not so easy to predict unless you have an application locked to a certain number of threads and CPU utilization.
Really, i will KEEP the X470 if this is the best the whole CHANNEL consortium can show me. No huge upside fo buy into.
BTW I have been seeing the Turbo Peaks you got since i dropped the 3900X in the Friday after the Sunday release....AMD direct sale on Sunday Morning. I seem them in CPUZ HWMON max history. That sim-ly grabs the high number for you no B.S.
The only important difference might be a better VRM solution, which has been improved generally speaking on x570 compared to older generations.
But if you bought the right board then it's not an issue (but then you would have to know what to look for) And even then, it really only matters once you push past 8 cores and obviously put a high load on the chip
Btw, not needing to buy a new board is a good thing
Indeed, all the so called PC tech press should be ashamed of how they spun this story. Toms didn`t even switch motherboard while testing this issue. The motherboard was the problem and they just transposed the problem to all their testings.
Toms is officially a joke of a site. Nothing coming from them since Just Buy It! can be trusted.
As always, very insightful background, analysis, and ultimate conclusions, Dr. Cutress (had to shoe that in because it sounds cool, right?).
I felt it was a bit overblown and I knew that performance with the "fixed" BIOS would be within standard deviation. I said as much on Reddit too. Software polling has limitations, as you rightly pointed out.
Finally an intelligent article looking at objective elements. So bored in reading Tom's hardware articles (that I avoid as possible if there are any other option) , where is clear in my opinion the focus as pro Intel ads. Fast articles so they are the only one on the subject, no real deepening of the subject but only on controversial elements, no comments possible so just a single opinion. Unfortunately I suppose this is how media is working and getting paid.
Just a note that der8auer actually asked AMD, and AMD told him, which software to use, which frequency for monitoring and which software to use to produce load Which Windows version, which drivers,....
So how to monitor and how its read, sure, but AMD did specify, so by AMD rules it should stack up to AMD marketing figures
Secondly Ryzen 3000 is a good CPU even when missing 50Mhz, if they can't boost that, then don't advertise on the "optimistic side" If silicone lottery really plays into this, just be pragmatic about it
Thirdly Don't have an official marketing video out talking, and drawing curves, about reaching 4.75 when most CPU's can't really reach 4.5
Dude, asking a bunch of techies who follow sites like this and deciding that 67% of customers do not expect CPU's to hit their turbo frequencies... Do I need to state the obvious here?
If the average Joe see's "4.7Ghz Turbo", they expect "4.7 Turbo", and anything else than that is fraud.
Yes, I read the article, I read and understood the reasoning behind it - I still disagree with it. If most of your chips can only hit 4.5 and not 4.7, then market it as 4.5 GHz turbo. If you want to sell the 4.7 chips as 4.7, then bin for it.
so i guess you are ok with intel marketing their chips to only use the watts they state, but under real usage, they can, specially when overclocked, they can use MUCH more ??
Also, if YOU have to write a multi page highly technical article on why AMD is right and all the customers are wrong, then you're just a fanboy who doesn't give a **** about the customer.
We get enough of this in the comments with people in the media joining in to make excuses for large multinationals at the expense of the average consumer.
Sounds like the "Intel Performance Maximizer" is exploring and characterising the frequency-space above the all-core turbo clock. That could be done at the factory to provide faster out-of-the-box performance, but would either introduce chip-to-chip variation is stock (rather than OC) performance, or create even more SKU bins. And people already throw a wobbler over he number of SKUs Intel produce (even though 90% of those are not a consideration unless you order direct from them in $multimillion batches).
This has the highest Turbo specification of all the processors; which was a good selling point when I first saw the specifications
However, it is becoming clear that the all-core base clock speed specification is more important. Particularly given that the 3900x seems to take the least "advantage" of Turbo out of all the current chips.
Comparing the specifications of 3950x to 3900x we see a 300MHZ drop off on base core speed; in exchange for an extra 100MHZ in boost - which seems somewhat questionable now.
A 50% increase in cost for an extra 4 cores and likely slower throughput for tasks that use 12 or less cores (which covers almost everything that is run in practice today) this doesn't look like particularly good value. My untested assumption is that the 300MHZ less in base speed is the more important number and will translate to slower throughput.
I'll wait for the reviews for the 3950x; but I expect that I'll be leaning for the 3900x for the second system I need to build.
3900X boosts higher than any other ryzen chip out today. I think 3950X will be faster than 3900X, on ryzen amount of cores doesn't matter at all. Have a ryzen 1700? it isn't at all limited in comparison to a 1600 and on average seems to hit higher frequencies and it's absolutely true for 3000 series, even More so!
"A 50% increase in cost for an extra 4 cores and likely slower throughput for tasks that use 12 or less cores (which covers almost everything that is run in practice today) this doesn't look like particularly good value."
The 3950X will almost certainly be faster than the 3900X in just about every scenario. If you consider the way the two chiplet CPUs are binned, they have one fast chiplet (CCD) and one that is not nearly as fast. In the 3900X these CCDs are 6 cores each, while they are 8 cores in the 3950X. Which means in an 8 thread workload, the 3950X can do that entire workload on the "better" CCD0, which should have a better frequency/voltage curve. The 3900X will have to dip into 2 cores on CCD1. The 12 core workload is a similar story, the overall frequency/voltage curve will be better on the 3950X because it is boosting more "better" binned cores than the 3900X with the same power envelop.
Excellent article and detective work, Ian! Thank you for it. Also reminds me of observation in QM, where experiment affects the results. Anyway, have a great day.
"However, given recent articles by some press, as well as some excellent write-ups by Paul Alcorn over at Tom’s Hardware* "
Please, I know you are parent sites, but HELL with that. Paul literally test the hardware with the SAME motherboard, the MSI GODLIKE x570 and never... ever mentioned anything close to a BIOS issue. He did an half-ass job that I could call as amateurish at best.
In the meantime, Steve from HardwareUnboxed tested the same CPU on DIFFERENT board and concluded into BIOS immaturity, what I called on the first instance of Toms series of bashing article.
I wouldn't necessarily agree, but the spirit of the statement is on track. In Paul Alcorn's write-up he attempted to associate the missing boost MHz, to a statement Shamino made about reliability, and then changes in thermal thresholds observed by "The Stilt". He never bothers to explain, why single threaded boosting (the thing everyone is complaining about) would be related to a threshold change from 80C to 75C when those temperatures are never observed during a lightly threaded workload. He then heats the boards up to those temps and looks at boosting, and sure enough, something changed just like the Stilt said. But what, if anything, does that have to do with the missing single thread boost MHz, when temps are well below 75C for most end users?
" 1. Popular YouTuber der8aur performed a public poll of frequency reporting that had AMD in a very bad light, with some users over 200 MHz down on turbo frequency, 2. The company settled for $12.1m in a lawsuit about marketing Bulldozer CPUs, 3. Intel made some seriously scathing remarks about AMD performance at a trade show, 4. AMD’s Enterprise marketing being comically unaware of how its materials would be interpreted."
"Others we ignored, such as (4) for a failure to see anything other than an honest mistake given how we know the individuals behind the issues, or the fact that we didn’t report on (3) because it just wasn’t worth drawing attention to it."
The reason why you guys are pros. You didn`t do Intel dirty work for propagating their propaganda... unlike TomsHardware...
Both Intel and AMD should start marketing their chips as "an X GHz chip", where X is the base frequency, if the turbo frequency isn't a part of the basic specirication of the chip that it must meet. Since even at the base frequency, apparently AMD chips don't last forever, it looks like I'm going to be underclocking mine a little.
"Certain parts of how the increased performance were understood,..." Should be "was" not "were": "Certain parts of how the increased performance was understood,..."
"...(standard is defined be Intel and AMD here, usually with a stock cooler, new paste, a clean chassis with active airflow of a minimum rate, and a given ambient temperature)..." "by" not "be": "...(standard is defined by Intel and AMD here, usually with a stock cooler, new paste, a clean chassis with active airflow of a minimum rate, and a given ambient temperature)..."
"This ultimately would lead some believe that this relates to a thermal capacity issue within the motherboard, CPU, or power delivery." Missing "to": "This ultimately would lead some to believe that this relates to a thermal capacity issue within the motherboard, CPU, or power delivery."
From what I understood, AMD has done tried to get as close to the limit of the silicon as possible regarding clocks. This allowed them to "survive" the transition to 7nm. Intel has kept a wide margin to the actual limits of the silicon and at 10nm (which is more or less 7nm of AMD) they struggle as the chips simply can't clock high enough.
Could be, this is the reason Intel will stick with 14nm for high performance until new silicon comes out that is similar to the AMD "to the limits" approach? This would be roughly 3 years from when they decided this (Jim Keller's arrival?).
I have a hunch that this is the future we are going towards, new nodes with diminishing returns (or even reductions) on clocks but advantages in power and number of transistors. Keeping close to the limit of the silicon will be the key for performance, right next to IPC.
On the other hand I would even consider that for some applications, having a refined 14* nm process could be an advantage (up to a frankenmonster of a hybrid 7/14 with UV). Intel, with its vast resources, should definitely explore this option to not only follow the competition but maintain the low thread performance crown.
But then, looks like AMD did their homework this time. :)
You are bang on. Intel 10nm process cost more, is having low yield and the frequency drop over 14nm++ is not bringing meaningful performances for making the transition.
This is why Intel is releasing new server, laptop and desktop CPUs on 14nm++. It cost less, having better yield and perform better.
"(3) because it just wasn’t worth drawing attention to it."
Oh, no no, please do an article about this. A comparison with Intel's marketing slides from, lets say, 2013, when Intel had clearly the upper hand would be interesting.
You don't get it, Intel goal was to draw attention and sow confusion by spreading FUD to damage AMD momentum.
Anandtech acted professionally in this matter and I salute them for it. I get your point that writting an article that could backfire on them would have its advantages, however it would just continue feeding this FUD thrown by Intel. It would just help Intel in the end to maintain the doubt that should not even exist in the beginning.
Ah, yes. The Heisenberg Turbo-certainty principle at play.
And of course not to mention the deeply philosophical quantum of a processor bursting but nobody noticing, did it even burst?
Jest aside, great, balanced article. Good to get misconceptions dealt with. I like AMD's approach to turbo. Only marketting could be argued it a negative I'd say. In general I think it's almost like we're going back to the frequency wars. Marketting should instead emphasis how little importance frequency has. And really it should almost be obvious to people, since pretty much everyone has tried upgrading their computer with a newer chip, experiencing a much greater difference than if frequency was the determining factor. Don't know about you lot, but I'd rather have a modern chip at 1GHz than (if it were possible) a Motorola 68K at 8GHz
When I bought my first Intel CPU with Turbo (a Core i7-6700K), my expectation was that base was guaranteed, and Turbo is an unpredictable bonus in speed. So not everyone has the expectations that you claim everybody has because of experience with Intel. Later, my experience was that the base frequency means very little: With little load, the CPU clocks at some low frequency; with load, it clocks beyond the base frequency. And then there are things like the AVX offset, which seems to affect even my laptop's Core i3-3227U (which clocks at 1.7GHz instead of 1.9GHz when running matrix multiplication code), although AVX offset is not documented for this CPU.
Back to AMD, in hindsight it might have been a better marketing strategy for AMD to announce the Ryzen 3000 CPUs with 100MHz less boost.
Concerning the article, I found the way strange in which the different approaches of Intel and AMD to deal with the limits of the hardware were portrayed. If I pay the same amount, and get the same stock performance, then I prefer a CPU with more headroom (for either overclocking or future degradation). If I pay the same amount and get the same overclocking performance (i.e., headroom), then yes, a CPU that uses more of that headroom is probably preferable (at least if it does not affect durability); but does the pricing of the CPUs actually reflect the headroom? In any case, for non-overclockers price/stock-performance and durability are relevant, and headroom is merely interesting.
This per core binning is basically giving you a chip with ZERO headroom, none. Intel chips like the famous A300 cel have typically had great headroom with a few exceptions over the years. I applaud AMD's recent efforts but they are pushing their chips to the max and overstating their ability. This not guaranteed crap is for the birds. I'd be pissed if I had purchased a chip and it didn't get the full turbo that was advertised. If the chip can't hit a certain performance level with certainty then use more weasel words like "up to". As in "up to 4GHz turbo possible with some luck"
with that, intel cpus should also have on their boxes : at base clocks, our cpus use xx watts, but, in real world usage, and if you over clock, our chips can use 100 to 150 watts more.
Thing is, AMD doesn't call it "Turbo". If tech journalists and reviewers called "Precision Boost" by its proper name there might be less confusion amongst the masses.
Precision Boost is more descriptive but the problem isn't so much with the name as the rating.
Before reading this article I would have expected even the slowest core to be able to reach the advertised Boost speed. For example a AMD RYZEN 7 3700X 8-Core 3.6 GHz (4.4 GHz Max Boost) should be able to hit 4.4 GHz with each and every core and for longer than a few nano-seconds. Of course being unlocked OC frequencies beyond 4.4 GHz would not be assured.
Now both Intel (TDP) and AMD (Boost) are pushing the limits of their technology and their own terminology.
I didn't really bother with turbo frequencies until it became a thing with AMD. I always read reviews of the processors and how they perform in general so the recent news made me confused. I'm unsure what to think of it, still. When I finished your article I came to conclusion that general performance of the processor is more important than frequency advertised. That and I read so many times that Turbo frequency is sustained only for a short period of time, I don't bother with checking it out anymore.
It was a minor uproar because of poor journalists like you who could not reach the clocks on the box yet did not make any investigation nor pursued the issue unless people were complaining enough or the German overclocker did the video.
Thanks the poor journalism you exhibit, clocks are still not fixed and the issue persists because you do not cover it.
So I ask again, how much did AMD pay you to test their products and ignore the obvious issue?
To reiterate, TURBO FREQUENCIES ARE COVERED BY WARRANTY ARE GUARANTEED in my country and the whole EU for example.
Again, how much did AMD pay you for the spreading of this misinformation and propaganda?
Been an Anandtech reader for more than 10 years this article makes sure I would be tied to such an amazing site Very well balanced article clearing doubts & misconception Thanks Ian Cutress Brunette back the podcasts
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
144 Comments
Back to Article
Dragonstongue - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
ty so much for the pro article and summing in questionnot always do I come here and "want" to continue reading over...I keep to myself.
thankfully this was not such an article
o7
Iger - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
+1This mirrors my thoughts and feelings exactly.
mikato - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
I completely agree. I had seen some of this with Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus, Der8auer, Reddit. This was a great summary with solid explanation behind it, a more helpful way to learn about the whole issue.Now for the next issue - Hey, Ian is a doctor now, thinks he's better than all of us. Discuss... :)
(yes I knew he had a doctorate already)
azfacea - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
death to intel LULPhynaz - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Drugs are bad for you, seek treatment.Smell This - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
It sure is interesting that the **Chipzillah Propaganda Machine** has entered high gear/over-drive over the last several weeks after reports that the "Intel Apollo Lake CPUs May Die Sooner Than Expected" ...https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-apollo-lak...
Funny that, huh?
eastcoast_pete - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Thanks Ian, helpful article with good explanations!Question: The "binning by expected lifespan" caught my eye. Could you do another nice backgrounder on how overclocking affects lifespan? I believe many out there believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch. So, how fast does a CPU (or GPU) degrade if it gets pushed (overclocked and overvolted) to the still-usable limit. Maybe Ryan can chime in on the GPU aspect, especially the many "factory overclocked" cards. Thanks!
Ian Cutress - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
I've been speaking to people about this to see if we can get a better understanding about manufacturing as it relates to expected product lifetimes and such. Overclocking would obviously be an extension to that. If something happens and we get some info, I'll write it up.igavus - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Aside from overclocking, it'd be interesting to know if the expected lifetime is optimized with warranty times and if what we're seeing is a step forward on the planned obsolescence path.It's sort of more important now than ever, because with 8 core being the new norm soon - we'll probably see even longer refresh cycles as workloads catch up to saturate the extra performance available. And limiting product lifetime would help curb those longer than profitable refresh cycles.
FunBunny2 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
"if what we're seeing is a step forward on the planned obsolescence path."you really, really should get this 57 Plymouth, cause your 56 Dodge has teeny tail fins.
Smell This - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
{ s-n-i-c-k-e-r }
BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Electron migration is generally considered to be the result of momentum transfer from the electrons, which move in the applied electric field, to the ions which make up the lattice of the interconnect material.Intuitively speaking, raising the frequency would proportionally increase the number of pulses over a given time, but the momentum (number of electrons) transferred per pulse would remain the same. Conversely, raising the voltage would proportionally increase the momentum (number of electrons) per pulse, but not the number of pulses over a given time. To make an analogy, raising the frequency is like moving your sandpaper faster while raising your voltage is like using coarser grit sandpaper at the same speed.
You might assume that if the total number of electrons are the same, then the wear will be the same? However, there is a certain amount of force required to dislodge an atom (or multiple atoms) from the interconnect material lattice. Though the concept is different, you can simplistically think of it like stationary friction. Increasing the voltage increases the force (momentum) from each pulse which could overcome this resistance where nominal voltages may not be enough. Also, increasing voltage has a larger affect on heat produced than increasing frequency. Adding heat energy into the system may lower the required force to dislodge the atom(s). If the nominal voltage is unable or only intermittently able to exceed the required force, then raising the frequency will have little effect compared to raising the voltage. That said, continuous strain will probably weaken the resistance over time, but it is likely that this still less significant than increasing voltage. Based on this, I would expect (read my opinion) four things:
1) Electron migration becomes exponentially worse the farther you exceed specifications (Though depending on where your initial durability is it may not be problematic)
2) The rate of electron migration is not constant. Holding all variables constant, it likely increases over time. That said, there are likely a lot of process specific variables that determine how quickly the rate increases.
3) Increasing voltage has a greater affect on electron migration than frequency. Increasing frequency alone may be considered far more affordable from a durability standpoint than increases that require significant voltage.
4) Up to a point, better cooling will likely reduce electron migration. We are already aware that increased heat physically expands the different materials in the semiconductor at different rates. It is likely that increased heat energy in the system also makes it easier to dislodge atoms from their lattice. Reducing this heat build-up should lessen the effect here.
Some or all of these may be partially or fully incorrect, but this is where my out of date intuition from limited experience in silicon fabrication takes me.
eastcoast_pete - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Thanks Ian! And, as mentioned, would also like to hear from you or Ryan on the same for GPUs. With lots of former cryptomining cards still in the (used) market, I often wonder just how badly those GPUs were abused in their former lifes.nathanddrews - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
My hypothesis is that CPUs are more likely to outlive their usefulness long before a hardware failure. CPUs failing due to overclocking is not something we hear much about - I'm thinking it's effectively a non-issue. My i5-3570K has been overclocked at 4.2GHz on air for 7 years without fault. I don't think it has seen any time over 60C. That said, as a CPU, it has nearly exhausted its usefulness in gaming scenarios due to lack of both speed and cores.What would cause a CPU to "burn out" that hasn't already been accounted for via throttling, auto-shutdown procedures, etc.?
dullard - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Thermal cycling causes CPU damage. Different materials expand at different rates when they heat, eventually this fatigue builds up and parts begin to crack. The estimated failure rate for a CPU that never reaches above 60°C is 0.1% ( https://www.dfrsolutions.com/hubfs/Resources/servi... ). So, in that case, you are correct that your CPU will be just fine.But, now CPUs are reaching 100°C, not 60°C. That higher temperature range doubles the temperature range the CPUs are cycling through. Also, with turbo kicking on/off quickly, the CPUs are cycling more often than before. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:AN...
GreenReaper - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Simple solution: run BOINC 24/7, keeps it at 100°C all the time!I'm sure this isn't why my Surface Pro isn't bulging out of its case on three sides...
Death666Angel - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Next up: The RGB enabled hair dryer upgrade to stop your precious silicon from thermal cycling when you shut down your PC!mikato - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Now I wonder how computer parts had an RGB craze before hair dryers did. Have there been andy RGB hair dryers already?tygrus - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
The CPU temperature sensors have changed type and location. Old sensors were closer to the surface temperature just under the heatsink (more of an average or single spot assumed to be the hottest). Now its the highest of multiple sensors built into the silicon and indicates higher temperatures for the same power&area than before. There is always a temperature gradient from the hot spots to where heat is radiated.eastcoast_pete - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
For me, the key statement in your comment is that your Sandy Bridge i7 rarely if ever went above 60 C. That is a perfectly reasonable upper temperature for a CPU. Many current CPUs easily get 50% hotter, and that's before any overclocking and overvolting. For GPUs, it even worse; 100 - 110 C is often considered "normal" for "factory overclocked" cards.Exodite - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
I'll take the opportunity to free-ride eastcoast_pete's comment to second its content! :)Awesome article Ian, this is the kind of stuff that brings me to AnandTech.
Also, in particular I found it fascinating to read about AMD's solution to electromigration - Zen seems to carry around a lot of surprises still! Adding to pete's ask re: overclocking vs. lifespan I'd be very interested to read more about how monitoring and counteracting the effects of electromigration actually works with AMD's current processors.
Thanks again!
HollyDOL - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
I used to have factory OCed GTX 580 (EVGA hydro model, bought when it was fresh new merchandise)... More than half of it's life time I was also running BOINC on it. Swapped for GTX 1080 when it was fresh new. So when replaced with faster card it was 5-6yrs old.Out of this one case I guess unless you go extereme OC or fail otherwise (condensation on subambient, very bad airflow, wrongly fitted cooler etc. etc.) you'll sooner replace with new one anyway since the component will get to age where no OC saves it from being obsolete anyway.
Though I'd be curious about more reliable numbers as well.
Gondalf - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Intel do not guarantee the turbo still it deliver well, AMD at least for now nope.Fix or not fix it is pretty clear actual 7nm processes are clearly slower than 14nm, nothing
can change this. Are decades that a new process have always an higher drive current of
the older one, this time this do not happen.
Pretty impressive to see a server cpu with 20% lower ST performance only because the
low power process utilized is unable to deliver a clock speed near 4Ghz, absurd thing considering
that Intel 14nm LP gives 4GHz at 1V without struggles.
Anyway.....this is the new world in upcomin years.
Korguz - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
intel also does not guarantee your cpu will use only 95 watts when at max speed... whats your point ? cap that cpu at the watts intel specifies.. and look what happens to your performance.Gondalf - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
My point power consumption is not a concern in actual desktop landscape only done of entusiasts with an SSD full of games, they want top ST perf at any cost, no matter 200 W of power consumption.Absolutely different is the story in mobile and server, but definitevely not in all workloads around.
vanilla_gorilla - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
> they want top ST perf at any costThey actually don't. Because no one other than the farmville level gamer is CPU bound. Everyone is GPU bound. The only exception is possibly people playing at 1080p (or less) and their framerates are 200-300 or more. There are no real situations where you will see any perceptible difference between the high end AMD or Intel CPU for gaming while using a modern discreet GPU.
The difference is buying AMD is cheaper, both the CPU and the platform, which has a longer lifetime by the way (AM4) and you get multicore performance that blows Intel away "for free".
N0Spin - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
I have seen reviews of demanding current generation gaming titles like Battlefield 5 in which reviewers definitely noted that the CPU level/and # of cores indeed influences the performance. I am not stating that this is always the case, but CPUs/cores can and do matter in a number of instances even if all you do is game, after running a kill all extraneous processes script.Xyler94 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
You're speaking for yourself here...I don't care if my CPU gets me 5 more FPS when I'm already hitting 200+ FPS, I care whether the darn thing doesn't A: Cook itself to death and B: Doesn't slow down when I'm hitting it with more tasks.
People have done the test, and you can too if you have an overclocking friendly PC. disable all but 1 core, and run it at 4GHZ, and see how well your PC performs. Then, enable 4 cores, and set them at 1GHZ, see how well the PC feels. It was seen that 4 cores at 1GHz was better than 1 core at 4ghz. The reality? More cores do more work. It's that simple.
You either don't pay electricity or are in a spot where the electricity cost of your computer doesn't factor into your monthly bill. Some people do care if a single part of their PC draws 200W of power. I certainly care, because the lower the wattage, I don't have to buy a super expensive UPS to power my device. Also, gaming is becoming more multi-threaded, so eventually, the ST performance won't matter anyways.
Korguz - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Gondalf, sorry but nope.. for some how much power a cpu uses is a concern, specially when one goes to choose HSF to cool that cpu, and they buy one, only to find that it isnt enough to keep it cool enough to run at the specs intel says.. and labeling a cpu to use 95 watts, and have it use 200 or more, is a HUGE difference. but you are speaking for your self, on the ST performance, as Xyler94 mentioned.evernessince - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
How about no. 200w for a few FPS sounds like a terrible trade off unless you are cooking eggs on your nipples with the 120 F room you are sitting in after that PC is running for 1 hour.StrangerGuy - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Pretty much the only people left OCing CPUs are epeen wavers with more money than sense."$300 mobo and 360mm AIO for that Intel 8 core <10% OC at >200W...Look at all that *free* performance! Amirite?"
Korguz - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
" Pretty much the only people left OCing CPUs are epeen wavers with more money than sense" that a pretty bold statement. i know quite a few people who overclock their cpus, because intel charged too much for the higher end ones, so they had to get a lower tier chip. with zen, thats not the case as much any more as they have switched over to amd, because by this time, they would of had to get a new mobo any way, because intels upgrade paths are only 2, maybe 3 years if they are lucky.dont " need " and AIO, as there are some pretty good air coolers out there, and some, dont like the idea of water, or liquid in their comps :-)
Xyler94 - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Sorry, here's where I'll have to disagree with you.You'll never overclock an i3 to i5/i7 levels. If my choices were between an overclocking i3, with a Z series board, or a locked i5 with an H series board, I'd choose the i5 in a heartbeat, as that's just generally better. Overclocking will never make up the lack of physical cores.
So I agree, mostly these days overclocking is reserved for A: People with e-peens, and B:, people who genuinely need 5ghz on a single core... which are fewer than those who can utilize the multi-threaded horsepower of Ryzen... so yeah,
evernessince - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Does it deliver well? I see plenty of people on the Intel reddit not hitting advertised turbo speeds. That's considering they are using $50+ CPU coolers as well."Pretty impressive to see a server cpu with 20% lower ST performance only because the
low power process utilized is unable to deliver a clock speed near 4Ghz, absurd thing considering
that Intel 14nm LP gives 4GHz at 1V without struggles."
What CPU are you talking about? Even AMD's 64 core monster has damn near the same IPC as the Intel Xeon 8280 (thanks to Zen 2 IPC improvements) and that CPU has LESS THEN HALF THE CORES and only consumes 20w more. The Intel CPU also costs almost twice as much. Only a moron brings up single threaded performance in a server chip conversation anyways, it's one of the least important metric for server chips. AMD's new EPYC chip crushes Intel in Core count, TCO, power consumption, and security. Everything that is important to server.
yankeeDDL - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
You do realize that the clock speed does not depend only by the process, right? Your comment sounds like that that of a disgruntled Intel fanboy trying to put AMD in under a bar light. For 25MHz.Spunjji - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Absolute codswallop. AMD are getting 100-300Mhz more on their peak clock speeds for Zen2 with this first-gen 7nm process tech than they were seeing with Zen+ 12nm (and nearly 400Mhz more than Zen on 14nm), so nothing about that implies that 7nm is slower than 14nm. Intel's architecture and process tech are not remotely comparable to AMD's, and we don't know what is the primary limiting factor on Zen clockspeeds.Not sure why you're claiming lower ST performance on the server parts either - Rome is better in every single regard than its predecessors, and it's better pound-for-pound than anything Intel will be able to offer in the next 12-18 months.
PeachNCream - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
I see a tempest in a teapot on the stove of a person who is busy splitting hairs at the kitchen table. It would be more interesting to calculate how much energy and time was expended on the issue to see if the performance uplift from the fix will offset the global societal cost of all the clamoring this generated. For that, I suppose you'd have to know how many Ryzen chips are actually doing something productive as opposed to crunching at video games.The idea of buying cheaper hardware for non-work needs sticks here. Less investment means less worry about maximizing your return on your super-happy-fun-box and less heartburn over a little bit of clockspeed on a component that plays second fiddle to GPU performance when it comes to entertainment anyway.
psychobriggsy - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Ultimately in the end it isn't MHz that counts, it is observed performance in the software that you care about. That's why we read reviews, and why the review industry is so large.If performance X was good enough, does it matter if it was achieved at 4.5GHz or 4.425GHz? Not really. But if the CPU manufacturer is using it as a primary competitive comparison metric (rather than a comparative metric with their other SKUs) then it has to be considered, like in this article.
It is sad that MHz is still a major metric in the industry, although now Intel IPC is similar to AMD IPC, it is actually kinda relevant.
What I'd like is better CPU power draw measurements versus what the manufacturer says. Because TDP advertising seems to be even more fraught with lies/marketing than MHz marketing! Obviously most users don't care about 10 or 20% extra power draw at a CPU level, as at a system level it will be a tiny change, but it's when it is 100% that it matters.
IMO, I'd like TDPs to be reported at all core sustained turbo, not base clocks. Sure, have a typical TDP measurement as well as the more information the better, but don't hide your 200W CPU under a 95W TDP.
TechnicallyLogic - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Personally, I feel that AMD should have 2 numbers for the max frequency of the CPU; "Boost Clock" and "Burst Clock". Assuming that you have adequete cooling and power delivery, the boost clock would be sustainable indefinitely on a single core, while the burst clock would be the peak frequency that a single core on the CPU can reach, even if it's just for a few ms.fatweeb - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
I could see them eventually going in this direction considering Navi already has three clocks: Base, Gaming, and Boost. The first two would be guaranteed, the last not so much.Kangal - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Yeah a Three Scenario figures sound best. It's easiest for consumers to understand. They should apply it for their GPUs and CPUs, and for all products ranging from Mobile to Server.Example:
Base Clock --- Burst Clock -- Boost Clock
3GHz 8 core - 5GHz 1 core - 4GHz 8 core
90W TDP ----- 120W TDP --- 150W TDP
teamet - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Whatever.. It's fine no matter what. It's just .. I mean .. why couldn't they just write 4.35 GHz on the box or whatever. The performance is there. No need to try and over-exaggerate clock.It feels like a battle between engineers and marketing, and marketing got to write the clock on the box in the end.
mczak - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
IMHO AMD made a mistake anyway trying to extract every little bit of performance. Leave those last 3% to the overclockers - they aren't really relevant but come at the expense of quite a lot of efficiency.franzeal - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
So you think it's better they create an inferior product for the masses, so that a few can feel like they got something extra/free? They did good.mikato - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Agree. This is a step forward as long as any risks are minimal. Why leave some performance only for overclockers if you don't have to?Arnulf - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
This is an industry-wide thing (have a look at the mobile SoCs, e. g. Qualcomm, ...). They love rounding their frequency figures up, reality be damned!DroidTomTom - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Reminds me of the days of the AMD Athlon XP 2500+ Barton 1.833 GHz Socket A CPU's. They were faster IPC than Intel but people only paid attention to frequency which was misleading. AMD was trying to put the focus on overall performance per dollar.Dribble - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
The graphs on pages 2 and 3 tell you all you need to know. AMD just run there cpu's far to close to the limit and give you numbers that are higher then what is understood by boost (it would be like Intel advertising boost as 5.2 not 4.6).It's deceptive really as the number does not mean the same thing as Intel's number. I am sure I'll get 20 replies saying how this is fine, but if it were Intel doing this then I bet the same people would be roasting Intel for this sort of miss-information.
Karmena - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
first, AMD does not call it Turbo, like Intel does. It is Boost. The problem is you assuming that those are the same. Same as in legal speak, you have to go and look up the definition of what is claimed. Or keep every company accountable. As most of the time they add that trademark thingy, and in the end that just means that the company gets to set up the definition of what it is. SMT vs HT.Spunjji - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
I can't believe anyone would make it all the way through such an informative article like this and then still post such an ignorant comment. The only reasonable conclusion is that you did not take the time to read it properly, because everything you said was discussed at length.0siris - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
In the end, this doesn't change anything for those of us who read reviews and decided based on those if the performance in our workloads was acceptable for the price AMD was asking. But if your marketing is going to dumb the performance down to a (set of) number(s), then you will also have to deal with the complaints of people whose understanding doesn't go beyond those simple numbers. Looks like the "bigger number!" marketing we've seen with is finally starting to hurt companies.It seems completely logical to me that boosting algorithms will become ever more refined to ensure optimal performance at all times. That's a good thing for all of us.
WaltC - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
The so-called Bulldozer lawsuit was settled by the lawyers who brought the suit (not just by AMD, as is erroneously often implied), who agreed to take the money and run rather than chance the loss of their suit, ultimately, because AMD surely would have won, anyway. AMD agreed to the payout as it amounted to less money than it would have cost AMD to actually go all the way and win the suit--this is why companies settle spurious lawsuits--and is the only reason they do. Additionally, in writing, the suing attorney's agreed with AMD that AMD had done nothing wrong--no false advertising, etc. Whenever this "issue" *cough* is raised, it is never explained fully--with a sort of mindless "AMD did something wrong" emphasis. Of course, nothing about this *old* lawsuit has anything at all to do with the burst frequency issue which AMD recently corrected in the ABBA AGESA is distributed a week ago--so what is the purpose of mentioning a lawsuit that the suing attorney's have dropped and agreed with AMD that AMD had done nothing wrong?....;) Clearly, the suing attorneys believed they could not win, else they would not have agreed to such a tiny settlement, eh? Or agreed to signing a statement clearing AMD of any wrongdoing whatsoever. (There is something wrong with the civil system when this kind of garbage is allowed to clog up the courts, imo, but that's another issue entirely.)I really don't understand why some people don't understand that "teething" issues with a new architecture release are common--and it doesn't matter whether AMD makes the CPU or Intel makes it--new architectures all demand a period of software adjustment--six months to a year is common for both companies when new architectures are released! I marvel that this needs explanation...;) It's been so long since Intel has shipped a ground-up new architecture, though, that likely few remember Intel-architecture teething problems. I hate to see all the red faces appearing when and if Intel ever makes it to 7nm with a new architecture....)
AMD has also made it clear that the AGESA bugs caused the loss of boost MHz, in all cases. They've surely fixed it--my 3600X boosts now like it did with AGESAs 1002/3 in bios releases for my x570Arus Master--and a tad faster--to 4.424GHz, instead of 4.401GHz. (Wowee...;)) Later AGESAs up through ABB cut max boost by ~125Mhz. Happy to report that has been remedied with the newer AMD AGESA ABBA bios for my x570 Master.
hansmuff - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Outrage culture and the lawyers are just cashing in on it. Can't blame them either.WaltC - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Yes! I really don't blame the starving lawyers quite as much as I blame the judges who greenlight spurious stuff like this. I mean, it creates the impression that either the judges don't understand the issues involved, or else that it's a racket with "everyone" hoping to share the ill-gotten gains...;) Because in the end--it's we the customers who pay for all of the spurious junk that isn't thrown out on day 1--just as much as if it was a direct tax. This reminds me so much of the infamous class-action suit they tried and failed to throw at the HDD makers a few years back. The lawyers alleged that everyone who bought a hard drive was "mislead" by false advertising because the HDD makers decided to call a "megabyte" 1,000,000 bytes instead of 1,024,000 bytes--*even though* all of the HDD makers posted that information not only in all their product advertising, but also on the HDD product boxes! The judge in that case was savvy enough to throw it out on Day 1, IIRC. In the Bulldozer case, of course, the lawyers will earn $6M-$8M (or more) of the $12M and the Bulldozer owners might be lucky to get $10 each....;) What a racket!...;)Targon - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Intel hasn't had a new architecture for so long at this point, many people have forgotten about the problems.WaltC - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Shades of Prescott..;)Korguz - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Targon, not according to one person that comments on here, sunny cove is a new architecture, and is completely different then all the cpu's intel has made over the last 5 or so years.but yea.. its time intel stopped milking the same architecture, and its customers, and came out with something that is actually new
Phynaz - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Why do you care, you would never buy intel?FunBunny2 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
"its time intel stopped milking the same architecture, and its customers, and came out with something that is actually new"'architecture' is constrained by the Law's of God, aka maths, so once the 'best' has been found, that's it. IMHO, all these 'architectures' amount to:
1) pulling previously off-chip function on-chip
2) rearranging them to implement Cray's shorter wires
3) adding more transistors to make certain functions bigger
not really much 'architecture' progress to any of that. in any case, how much more 'architecture' does it take to do word processing, spreadsheets, and e-mail? you know, the Three Killer Apps of the PC?
Korguz - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
once the best has been found ??? intel hasnt released a new architecture because they have had no reason to. but i bet now, with Zen, intel is doing just that, working on something that is actually new and not based on the same cpu we have had from them for the last 5 or so years.peevee - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
Sunny Cove is about just as new as Zen2 compared to Zen+, if not more.Only not "architecture" but "microarchitecture", architecture is the same Von Neumann prevalent since 1940s, or its Harvard variant prevalent since 1980s.
Jovec - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Might go to credibility and past behavior. Bulldozer couldn't maintain stock speeds under load (although the lawsuit was for something else IIRC).evilspoons - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Thanks for the informative article. The modal frequency being so close to the rating on all those 3000-series chips, BEFORE the +25-50 MHz fix, means it's not even worth worrying about. As consumers it's good to be informed and keep an eye on the companies we buy from, but there's no conspiracy here. Just confusion.Karmena - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Companies have to be held accountable on what they write on the boxes. Even if that is off by 25 out of 4400. Just be honest and write 4375.Atari2600 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
I'm sure your bright enough to be able to round up to 1 decimal place.What does 4.375 become when rounded to 1 decimal place?
ianisiam - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Except for the fact that 4400 isn't guaranteed. Like evilspoons said, it's just confusion.eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
You didn`t read the article obviously... these are not guaranteed. If you apply thermal paste and HSF pressure like an amateur, your results will not be in line with AMD numbers, but of course you will scream rip-off...Karmena - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Will not scream, just it would be nice to have every little bit. With ABBA, that is the case, in the end I need good mobo, good cooling, some memory OC prooves and I do not have to worry about CPU OC as that is brought to maximum performance by itself already.limitedaccess - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
I feel there is one more aspect to this that wasn't fully addressed nor have seen it very addressed in discussions.According to your article (which matches previous understanding) is that Intel (even if they won't guarantee it the boost speeds) will bin CPUs so that every core is capable of running at the listed turbo speeds. In your example every core can reach 4.6ghz for the 9600k.
While AMD with Zen is only binning one core as capable of reaching the boost speeds. Although you list a more likely typical example in your article does this not in theory mean that a 3600x which can only reach 4.4ghz on a single core, while all other 7 can only hit 3.8ghz will pass (even if statistically such a CPU is extremely unlikely)? Or is their binning actually tighter then this but not disclosed anywhere?
This has been one of my concerns with respect the this type of situation going forward. It seems like there needs to be more disclosure/data points on binning requirements going forward.
ajlueke - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Thanks Ian!Could you highlight what the nebulous "limits of the silicon" are? I have noticed, that in low current (core) work loads with Zen 2, the performance seems to be fixed. I'm not reaching any temperature, EDC, TDC or PPT boundary, but changing the scalar, increasing fmax, or increasing the aforementioned limits. It seems something else is limiting the processor's ability to boost, but there is no clear indication what that is. I have observed the Stilt mention the Fitness Monitoring Tool (FIT) as a voltage limit baked into the silicon. Zen 2, tend to be at this limit, and it simply will not go higher regardless of what you set PPT, TDC and EDC at. Do you have any additional information on this limiter?
It does seem fundamentally different for overclockers. The voltage limit on boosting seems to be reached before thermal limits, meaning that Zen2 CPUs with the stock cooler boost the same as those with far better heat dissipation, at least in lightly threaded workloads. I guess this is a good thing for users overall, as everyone gets the same performance out of the box, but jarring for enthusiasts who are used to seeing much high numbers on their systems. I noticed the delta between the bottom 5th percentile and upper 95th percentile of the 3900X on userbenchmark was 12.4%. Incredibly tight, and demonstrates that there likely isn't much to ring out of these systems.
ajlueke - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
More specifically, I was referring to this test from the article."Because of the new binning strategy – and despite what some of AMD's poorly executed marketing material has been saying – PBO hasn't been having the same effect, and users are seeing little-to-no benefit. This isn’t because PBO is failing, it’s because the CPU out of the box is already near its peak limits, and AMD’s metrics from manufacturing state that the CPU has a lifespan that AMD is happy with despite being near silicon limits."
What silicon limits exactly? AMDs marketing material has always indicated that a CPU will boost until it reaches either the PPT, TDC, EDC, or thermal limits. If none of those are met, it will boost until Fmax, which it simply will not exceed. Now, in a single threaded workload, the user is almost never at a PPT,TDC, EDC or thermal limit, and seem to be just shy of Fmax anyway. Now, if the user enables the auto-oc feature and extends Fmax by 100, 150 or 200MHz...nothing happens. The identical clockspeed and performance are observed.
I see the same thing happen in multicore on my 3900X. I normally hits the EDC and PPT limits under standard boosting. If I remove them, with precision boost overdrive, it does boost higher, but not by much. It again seems to stop a certain point. Again, EDC, TDC and PPT motherboard limits are not met, I am certainly not at Fmax, and the chip is under 70C, but it stops nonetheless. Nothing I can do makes it boost further.
"The Stilt", seems to mention the silicon fitness monitoring feature (FIT) in his "Matisse Strictly Technical" post on overclock.net. FIT appears to be a specific voltage limit for high and low current the CPU cannot exceed. This has never been included in AMDs documentation, and would help explain why the processor's stop boosting when according to AMD's own documentation, they should keep on going. So what exactly is this feature, and how does it work? I think that answer would do a great deal to alleviate user confusion.
mabellon - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
>> "To a certain extent, Intel already kind of does this with its Turbo Boost Max 3.0 processors... [the] difference between the two companies is that AMD has essentially applied this idea chip-wide and through its product stack, while Intel has not, potentially leaving out-of-the-box performance on the table."What does this mean? What has Intel not done that AMD has done? Both have variable max frequency per core. Both expose this concept to the OS. Both rely on the same Window scheduler. What are you alluding to is different here?
It seems to me that Intel's HEDT platform with Turbo 3.0 is very much similar to AMD's implementation in the sense of having certain cores run faster. @Ian how is performance left on the table for Intel here? (Intel non HEDT is obviously stuck on Turbo 2.0 which is at a disadvantage)
Targon - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
The majority of Intel chips are multiplier locked, so there isn't any real overclocking ability to speak of. It is only the k chips that users can overclock. AMD on the other hand, has PBO which is more advanced when it comes down to it.edzieba - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
"What does this mean? What has Intel not done that AMD has done?"Intel picks the maximum 'turbo' bin as the lowest that any core can achieve. AMD picks their maximum boost bin as the highest that any single core could achieve. 'Turbo 3.0' pre-selected two cores that were able to clock above the all-core turbo bin and allowed them to clock higher for lightly threaded workloads.
Jaxidian - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Is this WSL tool available for us to use? I'd love to have a better view of what speeds my cores could hit with a tool like this. In fact, I'd probably use it to map out all 12 cores (disabling 11 of them at a time). Obviously even that wouldn't quite give the whole picture, but it would be an interesting baseline map to have for my 3900x chip.Jaxidian - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
I got my "no" answer here: https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/117401405985..."It's a custom kludgy thing for internal use."
MFinn3333 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
I miss the old days when I would just push the Turbo frequency on my 286 and the CPU would go from 10MHz to 12MHz. Sure occassionally chip poppped off from the Glue but it was totally worth it to play Dune 2.sing_electric - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
"Turbo, in this instance, is aspirational. We typically talk about things like ‘a 4.4 GHz Turbo frequency’, when technically we should be stating ‘up to 4.4 GHz Turbo frequency’."This is true, but EXACTLY the problem. The marketing teams at AMD, Intel and everyone else KNOW that when you see "3.6 GHz / 4.5 GHZ Turbo" written on a box, your eye falls to the second, larger number, and that's what sticks in your head.
Why should the consumer know that some of the numbers on the box (core count, base freq) are guaranteed, but some (turbo) aren't? That makes no sense and is borderline deceptive. And this doesn't just matter to the fairly small, tech savvy group of people who buy a processor alone in a box - here's how Dell lists the processor on its base config XPS 13 laptop when you go to "Tech Specs & Customization"
"8th Generation Intel® Core™ i5-8265U Processor (6M Cache, up to 3.9 GHz, 4 cores)"
Dell doesn't even bother LISTING the base frequency, even when you click to get more detail - how's a consumer supposed to gauge how fast their processor is? (To their credit, Apple, HP and Lenovo all list base frequency and "up to" the turbo).
Turbo is a great technology for getting the most out of limited silicon, but both AMD and Intel are, while not QUITE being untruthful, certainly trying to put their products in as good of a light as possible.
DigitalFreak - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
That's marketing for you. Step as close to the "deceive the customer" line as possible without getting sued.Jaxidian - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
I'm looking at the retail box for my 3900x right now. The only thing it says about frequencies is "4.6 GHz Max Boost, 3.8 GHz Base". There is no "up to" verbiage anywhere on the box. From a FTC advertising standpoint, the 4.6GHz should be guaranteed even if only under nuanced "limited single-core" and "with specific but reasonable motherboard, cooling, and software" scenarios.While this is a very good article and I generally have very few issues with AMD's new approach here, I'm of the belief that legally, a 3900x should be guaranteed to hit 4.6GHz when in a specific-yet-real-world scenario. I don't mean $100 mobos with $25 coolers should be able to hit it. But a better-than-budget x570 motherboard using the stock cooler with proper updates on a supported OS should absolutely hit 4.6GHz with certain loads. Otherwise, I think there's a real legal issue here.
All this said, I am now seeing 4.6GHz from time to time on my 3900x with ABBA on my x570 Aorus Master, so we're good here. Never saw higher than 4.575 before ABBA.
Korguz - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
jaxidan, as this article stated, intel OR AMD don't guarantee the turbos, or max boost the cpus can reach.mikato - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Maybe the retail box should indicate that to avoid false advertising.Korguz - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
right after intels retail box, also states how much power its cpu's really use as well :-)Cooe - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - link
Someone doesn't understand what the word "Max" means... Here, I'll help you. "Maximum" literally = "Up to".Helevitia - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
I think the perception that people have about turbo frequencies (based on Intel experience) is that buying a high-end system with DIY water-cooling would lead to near max or over max clock frequencies. Since you can buy a lower-end AMD motherboard and average cooling solution and get the same results, this leads to disappointment from the end-user. With Intel, it felt worth it to spend the extra money in some cases. With AMD, it has me re-evaluating how I view building a PC. I have still not upgraded from my 4770K at 4.7GHz because it feels like we need more settling on the AMD side and need to see what INtel brings out by year's end.At the end of the day, even though I know we aren't guaranteed turbo frequencies, Intel has spoiled us and if you are going to post a number on your box, there should be a way to hit it in some cases wtih some CPUs.
nicamarvin - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Dr. Ian Cutress Yet another Pro-Intel Article?Korguz - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
how is this pro intel ?? did you even read it ?? he is trying to explain how the turbo speeds work.. and how intel and AMD go about getting them.ianisiam - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
This is a well-researched, even-handed, and readable retelling of a very complex issue. There's no shilling to be found here.eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
ROFL... and I am the one painted as the AMD fanboy... get lost, it is an awesome article.griffonu - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Anandtech being Anandtech yet again! Kudos!/bow
MDD1963 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
AMD's four visits totaling little 1/16th of a second each of a single core at advertised boost clocks within a 45 - 100 secnd period are most impressive! :)realHolt - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LesYlfhv3otwtech - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
If I buy a processor that's advertised as being able to reach a certain clockspeed, I expect the individual example of that product to be able to reach that speed - not that there are some other units marketed under the same name that may be able to. Better to under-advertise than over-advertise.Korguz - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
twtech and how do you feel about a cpu being advertised as using X amount of power, but using much more then that ?eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
It is not ADVERTISED as a 4.4GHz CPU either... you just made the assumption that it was!Techie2 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
IMNHO it's much nonsense over nothing. No problem with CPU turbo mode IME. Yes there was a 25 MHz drop with the first chipset update to fix overly sensitive load sensing that kept some CPUs at max vcore but other than that no issues for me and no malice or fraud by AMD.FYI - AMD settled the bogus CPU core count lawsuit as it was cheaper to settle a frivolous lawsuit than fight it in U.S. courts where Jackpot Justice prevails by criminals. Pour a cup of coffee on your crotch in a moving vehicle and become an instant millionaire. It's the American way...
zodiacfml - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Never bothered to read on this issue, surprising Andntech did. I guess its quiet right now in the tech world. This topic is of little value considering that even Intel's turbo boost speeds are not so easy to predict unless you have an application locked to a certain number of threads and CPU utilization.PProchnow - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Now like if you think Intel I want 5.5Ghz locked in low on 12 cores!!!!I got a 4.4Ghz locked SANDRA Graphics Handling Benchie that convinced me the 3900X R A W K Z !
PProchnow - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Really, i will KEEP the X470 if this is the best the whole CHANNEL consortium can show me. No huge upside fo buy into.
BTW I have been seeing the Turbo Peaks you got since i dropped the 3900X in the Friday after the Sunday release....AMD direct sale on Sunday Morning. I seem them in CPUZ HWMON max history. That sim-ly grabs the high number for you no B.S.
Peter2k - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
The only important difference might be a better VRM solution, which has been improved generally speaking on x570 compared to older generations.But if you bought the right board then it's not an issue (but then you would have to know what to look for)
And even then, it really only matters once you push past 8 cores and obviously put a high load on the chip
Btw, not needing to buy a new board is a good thing
allenb - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Nicely done, Ian, very nicely done. The PC hardware world could do with more reporting like this.eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Indeed, all the so called PC tech press should be ashamed of how they spun this story. Toms didn`t even switch motherboard while testing this issue. The motherboard was the problem and they just transposed the problem to all their testings.Toms is officially a joke of a site. Nothing coming from them since Just Buy It! can be trusted.
JasonMZW20 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
As always, very insightful background, analysis, and ultimate conclusions, Dr. Cutress (had to shoe that in because it sounds cool, right?).I felt it was a bit overblown and I knew that performance with the "fixed" BIOS would be within standard deviation. I said as much on Reddit too. Software polling has limitations, as you rightly pointed out.
Arbie - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
A very high quality article - upholding the AT standard for sure - which was sorely needed. Thanks!davide445 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Finally an intelligent article looking at objective elements.So bored in reading Tom's hardware articles (that I avoid as possible if there are any other option) , where is clear in my opinion the focus as pro Intel ads. Fast articles so they are the only one on the subject, no real deepening of the subject but only on controversial elements, no comments possible so just a single opinion. Unfortunately I suppose this is how media is working and getting paid.
Peter2k - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Just a note that der8auer actually asked AMD, and AMD told him, which software to use, which frequency for monitoring and which software to use to produce loadWhich Windows version, which drivers,....
So how to monitor and how its read, sure, but AMD did specify, so by AMD rules it should stack up to AMD marketing figures
Secondly
Ryzen 3000 is a good CPU even when missing 50Mhz, if they can't boost that, then don't advertise on the "optimistic side"
If silicone lottery really plays into this, just be pragmatic about it
Thirdly
Don't have an official marketing video out talking, and drawing curves, about reaching 4.75 when most CPU's can't really reach 4.5
eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Well, some of the chips are hitting the announced frequency...And now even more after this new AGESA update.
Oliseo - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Dude, asking a bunch of techies who follow sites like this and deciding that 67% of customers do not expect CPU's to hit their turbo frequencies... Do I need to state the obvious here?If the average Joe see's "4.7Ghz Turbo", they expect "4.7 Turbo", and anything else than that is fraud.
eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
You read the article? Those are not guaranteed speed and most of the time the difference in speed doesn`t translate in better performances.twtech - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Yes, I read the article, I read and understood the reasoning behind it - I still disagree with it. If most of your chips can only hit 4.5 and not 4.7, then market it as 4.5 GHz turbo. If you want to sell the 4.7 chips as 4.7, then bin for it.Korguz - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
so i guess you are ok with intel marketing their chips to only use the watts they state, but under real usage, they can, specially when overclocked, they can use MUCH more ??Cooe - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - link
It doesn't say "4.7GHz Turbo" it says "Max 4.7GHz Turbo". Aka "UP TO!". It's not AMD's fault if "Average Joe" literally doesn't know how to read...Oliseo - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Also, if YOU have to write a multi page highly technical article on why AMD is right and all the customers are wrong, then you're just a fanboy who doesn't give a **** about the customer.We get enough of this in the comments with people in the media joining in to make excuses for large multinationals at the expense of the average consumer.
Shame on you!
eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Here, these people will escort you to your new home, the asylum... cheers and enjoy you stray jacket...Calabros - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
This the funniest First World Problem I've seen in 2019.regsEx - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
I can't find any reference in CFL documentation that PL1 is for base clocks. It doesn't seem to have any correlation.edzieba - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Sounds like the "Intel Performance Maximizer" is exploring and characterising the frequency-space above the all-core turbo clock. That could be done at the factory to provide faster out-of-the-box performance, but would either introduce chip-to-chip variation is stock (rather than OC) performance, or create even more SKU bins. And people already throw a wobbler over he number of SKUs Intel produce (even though 90% of those are not a consideration unless you order direct from them in $multimillion batches).samboy - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
My biggest concern is for the 3950x.This has the highest Turbo specification of all the processors; which was a good selling point when I first saw the specifications
However, it is becoming clear that the all-core base clock speed specification is more important. Particularly given that the 3900x seems to take the least "advantage" of Turbo out of all the current chips.
Comparing the specifications of 3950x to 3900x we see a 300MHZ drop off on base core speed; in exchange for an extra 100MHZ in boost - which seems somewhat questionable now.
A 50% increase in cost for an extra 4 cores and likely slower throughput for tasks that use 12 or less cores (which covers almost everything that is run in practice today) this doesn't look like particularly good value. My untested assumption is that the 300MHZ less in base speed is the more important number and will translate to slower throughput.
I'll wait for the reviews for the 3950x; but I expect that I'll be leaning for the 3900x for the second system I need to build.
oleyska - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
3900X boosts higher than any other ryzen chip out today.I think 3950X will be faster than 3900X, on ryzen amount of cores doesn't matter at all.
Have a ryzen 1700? it isn't at all limited in comparison to a 1600 and on average seems to hit higher frequencies and it's absolutely true for 3000 series, even More so!
ajlueke - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
"A 50% increase in cost for an extra 4 cores and likely slower throughput for tasks that use 12 or less cores (which covers almost everything that is run in practice today) this doesn't look like particularly good value."The 3950X will almost certainly be faster than the 3900X in just about every scenario. If you consider the way the two chiplet CPUs are binned, they have one fast chiplet (CCD) and one that is not nearly as fast.
In the 3900X these CCDs are 6 cores each, while they are 8 cores in the 3950X. Which means in an 8 thread workload, the 3950X can do that entire workload on the "better" CCD0, which should have a better frequency/voltage curve. The 3900X will have to dip into 2 cores on CCD1. The 12 core workload is a similar story, the overall frequency/voltage curve will be better on the 3950X because it is boosting more "better" binned cores than the 3900X with the same power envelop.
GeoffreyA - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Excellent article and detective work, Ian! Thank you for it. Also reminds me of observation in QM, where experiment affects the results. Anyway, have a great day.eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
"However, given recent articles by some press, as well as some excellent write-ups by Paul Alcorn over at Tom’s Hardware* "Please, I know you are parent sites, but HELL with that. Paul literally test the hardware with the SAME motherboard, the MSI GODLIKE x570 and never... ever mentioned anything close to a BIOS issue. He did an half-ass job that I could call as amateurish at best.
In the meantime, Steve from HardwareUnboxed tested the same CPU on DIFFERENT board and concluded into BIOS immaturity, what I called on the first instance of Toms series of bashing article.
ajlueke - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
I wouldn't necessarily agree, but the spirit of the statement is on track. In Paul Alcorn's write-up he attempted to associate the missing boost MHz, to a statement Shamino made about reliability, and then changes in thermal thresholds observed by "The Stilt".He never bothers to explain, why single threaded boosting (the thing everyone is complaining about) would be related to a threshold change from 80C to 75C when those temperatures are never observed during a lightly threaded workload. He then heats the boards up to those temps and looks at boosting, and sure enough, something changed just like the Stilt said. But what, if anything, does that have to do with the missing single thread boost MHz, when temps are well below 75C for most end users?
eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
" 1. Popular YouTuber der8aur performed a public poll of frequency reporting that had AMD in a very bad light, with some users over 200 MHz down on turbo frequency,2. The company settled for $12.1m in a lawsuit about marketing Bulldozer CPUs,
3. Intel made some seriously scathing remarks about AMD performance at a trade show,
4. AMD’s Enterprise marketing being comically unaware of how its materials would be interpreted."
And in the meantime in the same week...
1. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/297627-amd-o...
2. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/297785-amd-s...
Like I told AdoredTV... we have a very different definition of BAD WEEK. Honestly, those issue are hiccup of any new platform launch.
eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
"Others we ignored, such as (4) for a failure to see anything other than an honest mistake given how we know the individuals behind the issues, or the fact that we didn’t report on (3) because it just wasn’t worth drawing attention to it."The reason why you guys are pros. You didn`t do Intel dirty work for propagating their propaganda... unlike TomsHardware...
quadibloc - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Both Intel and AMD should start marketing their chips as "an X GHz chip", where X is the base frequency, if the turbo frequency isn't a part of the basic specirication of the chip that it must meet. Since even at the base frequency, apparently AMD chips don't last forever, it looks like I'm going to be underclocking mine a little.ballsystemlord - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Spelling and grammar corrections:"Certain parts of how the increased performance were understood,..."
Should be "was" not "were":
"Certain parts of how the increased performance was understood,..."
"...(standard is defined be Intel and AMD here, usually with a stock cooler, new paste, a clean chassis with active airflow of a minimum rate, and a given ambient temperature)..."
"by" not "be":
"...(standard is defined by Intel and AMD here, usually with a stock cooler, new paste, a clean chassis with active airflow of a minimum rate, and a given ambient temperature)..."
"This ultimately would lead some believe that this relates to a thermal capacity issue within the motherboard, CPU, or power delivery."
Missing "to":
"This ultimately would lead some to believe that this relates to a thermal capacity issue within the motherboard, CPU, or power delivery."
Uroshima - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Very nice article.From what I understood, AMD has done tried to get as close to the limit of the silicon as possible regarding clocks. This allowed them to "survive" the transition to 7nm. Intel has kept a wide margin to the actual limits of the silicon and at 10nm (which is more or less 7nm of AMD) they struggle as the chips simply can't clock high enough.
Could be, this is the reason Intel will stick with 14nm for high performance until new silicon comes out that is similar to the AMD "to the limits" approach? This would be roughly 3 years from when they decided this (Jim Keller's arrival?).
I have a hunch that this is the future we are going towards, new nodes with diminishing returns (or even reductions) on clocks but advantages in power and number of transistors. Keeping close to the limit of the silicon will be the key for performance, right next to IPC.
On the other hand I would even consider that for some applications, having a refined 14* nm process could be an advantage (up to a frankenmonster of a hybrid 7/14 with UV). Intel, with its vast resources, should definitely explore this option to not only follow the competition but maintain the low thread performance crown.
But then, looks like AMD did their homework this time. :)
eva02langley - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
You are bang on. Intel 10nm process cost more, is having low yield and the frequency drop over 14nm++ is not bringing meaningful performances for making the transition.This is why Intel is releasing new server, laptop and desktop CPUs on 14nm++. It cost less, having better yield and perform better.
eva02langley - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
However the power consumption just cannot match TSMC 7nm.yannigr2 - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
"(3) because it just wasn’t worth drawing attention to it."Oh, no no, please do an article about this. A comparison with Intel's marketing slides from, lets say, 2013, when Intel had clearly the upper hand would be interesting.
eva02langley - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
You don't get it, Intel goal was to draw attention and sow confusion by spreading FUD to damage AMD momentum.Anandtech acted professionally in this matter and I salute them for it. I get your point that writting an article that could backfire on them would have its advantages, however it would just continue feeding this FUD thrown by Intel. It would just help Intel in the end to maintain the doubt that should not even exist in the beginning.
casperes1996 - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Ah, yes. The Heisenberg Turbo-certainty principle at play.And of course not to mention the deeply philosophical quantum of a processor bursting but nobody noticing, did it even burst?
Jest aside, great, balanced article. Good to get misconceptions dealt with. I like AMD's approach to turbo. Only marketting could be argued it a negative I'd say. In general I think it's almost like we're going back to the frequency wars. Marketting should instead emphasis how little importance frequency has. And really it should almost be obvious to people, since pretty much everyone has tried upgrading their computer with a newer chip, experiencing a much greater difference than if frequency was the determining factor. Don't know about you lot, but I'd rather have a modern chip at 1GHz than (if it were possible) a Motorola 68K at 8GHz
AntonErtl - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
When I bought my first Intel CPU with Turbo (a Core i7-6700K), my expectation was that base was guaranteed, and Turbo is an unpredictable bonus in speed. So not everyone has the expectations that you claim everybody has because of experience with Intel. Later, my experience was that the base frequency means very little: With little load, the CPU clocks at some low frequency; with load, it clocks beyond the base frequency. And then there are things like the AVX offset, which seems to affect even my laptop's Core i3-3227U (which clocks at 1.7GHz instead of 1.9GHz when running matrix multiplication code), although AVX offset is not documented for this CPU.Back to AMD, in hindsight it might have been a better marketing strategy for AMD to announce the Ryzen 3000 CPUs with 100MHz less boost.
Concerning the article, I found the way strange in which the different approaches of Intel and AMD to deal with the limits of the hardware were portrayed. If I pay the same amount, and get the same stock performance, then I prefer a CPU with more headroom (for either overclocking or future degradation). If I pay the same amount and get the same overclocking performance (i.e., headroom), then yes, a CPU that uses more of that headroom is probably preferable (at least if it does not affect durability); but does the pricing of the CPUs actually reflect the headroom? In any case, for non-overclockers price/stock-performance and durability are relevant, and headroom is merely interesting.
lakedude - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
This per core binning is basically giving you a chip with ZERO headroom, none. Intel chips like the famous A300 cel have typically had great headroom with a few exceptions over the years. I applaud AMD's recent efforts but they are pushing their chips to the max and overstating their ability. This not guaranteed crap is for the birds. I'd be pissed if I had purchased a chip and it didn't get the full turbo that was advertised. If the chip can't hit a certain performance level with certainty then use more weasel words like "up to". As in "up to 4GHz turbo possible with some luck"Korguz - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
with that, intel cpus should also have on their boxes : at base clocks, our cpus use xx watts, but, in real world usage, and if you over clock, our chips can use 100 to 150 watts more.lakedude - Sunday, September 22, 2019 - link
Agreed, same type of thing with Intel's TDP. They blamed the motherboards, roll eyes.John_M - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
Thing is, AMD doesn't call it "Turbo". If tech journalists and reviewers called "Precision Boost" by its proper name there might be less confusion amongst the masses.lakedude - Sunday, September 22, 2019 - link
Precision Boost is more descriptive but the problem isn't so much with the name as the rating.Before reading this article I would have expected even the slowest core to be able to reach the advertised Boost speed. For example a AMD RYZEN 7 3700X 8-Core 3.6 GHz (4.4 GHz Max Boost) should be able to hit 4.4 GHz with each and every core and for longer than a few nano-seconds. Of course being unlocked OC frequencies beyond 4.4 GHz would not be assured.
Now both Intel (TDP) and AMD (Boost) are pushing the limits of their technology and their own terminology.
Good thing we have AnandTech!
Badelhas - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
This is an awesome article, this is why I love AnandTech. Thank you.realbabilu - Sunday, September 22, 2019 - link
This is motherboard dependent.Great , waiting for motherboard shootout benchmark like 90’s Anand did.
tommo1982 - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
I didn't really bother with turbo frequencies until it became a thing with AMD. I always read reviews of the processors and how they perform in general so the recent news made me confused. I'm unsure what to think of it, still. When I finished your article I came to conclusion that general performance of the processor is more important than frequency advertised. That and I read so many times that Turbo frequency is sustained only for a short period of time, I don't bother with checking it out anymore.Maxiking - Thursday, September 26, 2019 - link
Very nice PR article, how much did it cost AMD?"a minor uproar"
It was a minor uproar because of poor journalists like you who could not reach the clocks on the box yet did not make any investigation nor pursued the issue unless people were complaining enough or the German overclocker did the video.
Thanks the poor journalism you exhibit, clocks are still not fixed and the issue persists because you do not cover it.
So I ask again, how much did AMD pay you to test their products and ignore the obvious issue?
To reiterate, TURBO FREQUENCIES ARE COVERED BY WARRANTY ARE GUARANTEED in my country and the whole EU for example.
Again, how much did AMD pay you for the spreading of this misinformation and propaganda?
Remember bulldozer? their claim of 8 cores?
Kishoreshack - Sunday, September 29, 2019 - link
Been an Anandtech reader for more than 10 yearsthis article makes sure I would be tied to such an amazing site
Very well balanced article
clearing doubts & misconception
Thanks Ian Cutress
Brunette back the podcasts