Editorial: Boostgate: AMD’s Boost Clock Controversy

I'm a BIOS whore .. so when ASRock releases the update for my X470 .. I'll load it up and see what happens. :unsure:
 
I imagine that the fixes will deploy to X570 boards first, followed by X470.
 
Yeah.. I'm not holding my breath until Mid/End Oct. for my X470 BIOS release..
 
I think giving this a name like BoostGate makes it far worse than it actually has any right to be. This is a minor issue being addressed like it is the end of the freaking computing world.

It is an issue... but I think the deepening of concern over it is something of a gorilla marketing tactic by Intel. If they could just stop having new vulnerabilities crop up on their entire hyper-threaded CPU line MAYBE that would mean something.
 
Grimlakin said:
I think giving this a name like BoostGate makes it far worse than it actually has any right to be. This is a minor issue being addressed like it is the end of the freaking computing world.

It is an issue... but I think the deepening of concern over it is something of a gorilla marketing tactic by Intel. If they could just stop having new vulnerabilities crop up on their entire hyper-threaded CPU line MAYBE that would mean something.
Click to expand...

That's kind of the point though. The fact is, there are people who act like its no big deal and those who act like AMD needs to be sued into oblivion over it.

Frankly, I'm in the camp that thinks its not a huge deal. The performance is there and it doesn't change my recommendations on these products. However, AMD could have handled the whole thing better on multiple levels, which is what the editorial is about.
 
Practically every major hardware company is guilty of deploying "optimistic" marketing. Like, I cannot think of a single company that hasn't done it in the last 5 years, many more than once.

People need to chill. Read the reviews, buy accordingly. Simple.
 
I think people have a legitimate case for false advertising. I'm super impressed with what AMD has accomplished and I really want them to be successful, but if you advertise single core boost speeds and can't hit them that's false advertising. If you can't sustain them with the provided cooler (or at all) I think that should also be very clearly indicated but may not be false advertising. I'd still buy a ryzen 3000, but I don't think people should give AMD a pass on this. If the chips can't hit those speeds they should have been binned to a lower sku, like a new 3700 sku with lower boost clocks or advertise boost very differently.
 
Last edited:
As I said in the article, I don't think AMD should have advertised anything over 4.3GHz for any of these CPU's. Physically, they could have allowed them to boost higher as they do now, but no one would expect those clocks to be sustained.
 
There really is no controversy here. The only clocks you're guaranteed are the base clocks, and that's on both AMD and Intel fronts; sure it's been common to overclock and get "turbo" and "boost", or whatever you want to call a *hassle free overclock*, in the past and that expectation is the only thing that made this newsworthy in any way. Even if the chips only hit 50MHz over the base clock, there is no false advertisement and no controversy as boost clocks have never been guaranteed in any way, it's just the theoretical maximum the chip will hit without tweaking under optimal conditions.

The community has just gotten used to the way it has worked over the years and now that change is happening in the clock speed world, it's met with resistance, as is a normal reaction to change, especially when it's something seemingly big. In the end, a 25-100MHz bump is essentially meaningless except in a "I want this thing you said I could possibly get, but didn't actually guarantee me", and a "look at my numbers" way; that incredibly small boost of frequency is not going to matter in 99.99% of scenarios (likely even 100%).

Don't get me wrong, I've been a life-long overclocker and I enjoy putting in the time it takes to do it, and when I saw my 3600X wasn't hitting the boost specs they suggested it was capable of, I was a little disappointed, but I'm not about to cause an uproar over the 25MHz that I'm missing because some part of my brain would be satisfied seeing the number when, in reality, the performance difference is moot, and could even be considered small enough to be within margin of error. Then there are the people who were hitting over boost numbers as well, though it seemed everyone I saw getting higher than boost numbers were running X3xx or X4xx boards and were seeing the higher voltage on single core loads to get those frequencies.
 
Last edited:
Captindecisive said:
There really is no controversy here. The only clocks you're guaranteed are the base clocks, and that's on both AMD and Intel fronts; sure it's been common to overclock and get "turbo" and "boost", or whatever you want to call a *hassle free overclock*, in the past and that expectation is the only thing that made this newsworthy in any way. Even if the chips only hit 50MHz over the base clock, there is no false advertisement and no controversy as boost clocks have never been guaranteed in any way, it's just the theoretical maximum the chip will hit without tweaking under optimal conditions.

The community has just gotten used to the way it has worked over the years and now that change is happening in the clock speed world, it's met with resistance, as is a normal reaction to change, especially when it's something seemingly big. In the end, a 25-100MHz bump is essentially meaningless except in a "I want this thing you said I could possibly get, but didn't actually guarantee me", and a "look at my numbers" way; that incredibly small boost of frequency is not going to matter in 99.99% of scenarios (likely even 100%).

Don't get me wrong, I've been a life-long overclocker and I enjoy putting in the time it takes to do it, and when I saw my 3600X wasn't hitting the boost specs they suggested it was capable of, I was a little disappointed, but I'm not about to cause an uproar over the 25MHz that I'm missing because some part of my brain would be satisfied seeing the number when, in reality, the performance difference is moot, and could even be considered small enough to be within margin of error. Then there are the people who were hitting over boost numbers as well, though it seemed everyone I saw getting higher than boost numbers were running X3xx or X4xx boards and were seeing the higher voltage on single core loads to get those frequencies.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case on the intel front. Look at this processor
ark.intel.com

Intel® Core™ i7-10510U Processor (8M Cache, up to 4.90 GHz) Product Specifications

Intel® Core™ i7-10510U Processor (8M Cache, up to 4.90 GHz) quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.
ark.intel.com ark.intel.com

The base clock is 1.8 GHz and the turbo is 4.9 GHz. Turbo is not a nice to have. This processor's clock speed more than doubles with turbo nad it is expected to play a big role on this processor.

Intel's doc's (below) clearly say if the load, temperature, and power consumption are ok that you will boost to turbo frequency.



'Max Turbo Frequency
Max turbo frequency is the maximum single core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating using Intel® Turbo Boost Technology and, if present, Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost. Frequency is measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second.
'

Also 'Max Turbo Frequency refers to the maximum single-core processor frequency that can be achieved with Intel® Turbo Boost Technology. See www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/ for more information. '

Maximum turbo frequency indicates the highest possible frequency achievable when conditions allow the processor to enter turbo mode. Intel® Turbo Boost Technology frequency varies depending on workload, hardware, software, and overall system configuration.
Due to varying power characteristics, some parts with Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 may not achieve maximum turbo frequencies when running heavy workloads and using multiple cores concurrently.
Availability and frequency upside of Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 state depends upon a number of factors including, but not limited to, the following:
  • Type of workload
  • Number of active cores
  • Estimated current consumption
  • Estimated power consumption
  • Processor temperature
When the processor is operating below these limits and the user's workload demands additional performance, the processor frequency will dynamically increase until the upper limit of frequency is reached. Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 has multiple algorithms operating in parallel to manage current, power, and temperature to maximize frequency and energy efficiency. Note: Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its TDP configuration and data sheet specified power for short durations to maximize performance.
Find more information on Intel® products with Intel® Turbo Boost Technology ›
Processors with the same model number running under the same operating conditions may see some frequency or power variance. This is a natural characteristic of silicon driven by variances in voltages, power, and leakage during the production process. Contact your local Intel sales office or your distributor to obtain the latest specifications.
 
kin said:
I don't think that's the case on the intel front. Look at this processor
ark.intel.com

Intel® Core™ i7-10510U Processor (8M Cache, up to 4.90 GHz) Product Specifications

Intel® Core™ i7-10510U Processor (8M Cache, up to 4.90 GHz) quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.
ark.intel.com ark.intel.com

The base clock is 1.8 GHz and the turbo is 4.9 GHz. Turbo is not a nice to have. This processor's clock speed more than doubles with turbo nad it is expected to play a big role on this processor.

Intel's doc's (below) clearly say if the load, temperature, and power consumption are ok that you will boost to turbo frequency.



'Max Turbo Frequency
Max turbo frequency is the maximum single core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating using Intel® Turbo Boost Technology and, if present, Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost. Frequency is measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second.
'

Also 'Max Turbo Frequency refers to the maximum single-core processor frequency that can be achieved with Intel® Turbo Boost Technology. See www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/ for more information. '

Maximum turbo frequency indicates the highest possible frequency achievable when conditions allow the processor to enter turbo mode. Intel® Turbo Boost Technology frequency varies depending on workload, hardware, software, and overall system configuration.
Due to varying power characteristics, some parts with Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 may not achieve maximum turbo frequencies when running heavy workloads and using multiple cores concurrently.
Availability and frequency upside of Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 state depends upon a number of factors including, but not limited to, the following:
  • Type of workload
  • Number of active cores
  • Estimated current consumption
  • Estimated power consumption
  • Processor temperature
When the processor is operating below these limits and the user's workload demands additional performance, the processor frequency will dynamically increase until the upper limit of frequency is reached. Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 has multiple algorithms operating in parallel to manage current, power, and temperature to maximize frequency and energy efficiency. Note: Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its TDP configuration and data sheet specified power for short durations to maximize performance.
Find more information on Intel® products with Intel® Turbo Boost Technology ›
Processors with the same model number running under the same operating conditions may see some frequency or power variance. This is a natural characteristic of silicon driven by variances in voltages, power, and leakage during the production process. Contact your local Intel sales office or your distributor to obtain the latest specifications.
Click to expand...

In circumstances of chips like this, you're right, it's less of a "nice to have" and more of a necessity, that doesn't mean they are obligated to meet the max number, but they usually do, and in the case of the Ryzen 3000 series, they come close enough to hitting the advertised boost clocks, that it really isn't an issue, but has been blown out of proportion. Again, don't get me wrong, holding companies accountable to their word is necessary or there would be so much consumer abuse, but in cases where the terms are never guaranteed in the first place, and what's delivered is working so close to how it was intended or stated, it's silly to make it a big deal.

"Max turbo frequency is the maximum single core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating"

"Maximum turbo frequency indicates the highest possible frequency achievable when conditions allow the processor to enter turbo mode. Intel® Turbo Boost Technology frequency varies depending on workload, hardware, software, and overall system configuration."

These are the things that I was saying above, and AMD's verbiage is similar. If that processor never broke 1.8GHz, Intel isn't liable for false advertisement or false claims. That processor can, under ideal conditions, reach that frequency. I'm not saying it will not go over 1.8GHz, but if it did not, Intel has no responsibility to care given the verbiage of "up to" and "max frequency capable". However, in reality, we know that the processor is going to come close to, or will hit those numbers.
 
Now, if you want to know if you actually need those magic 50 Mhz above 4.3 - then we can take a looksie at something I captured recently;

frames2.png

Here's me playing Overwatch on my new 240 Hz monitor that even features backlight strobing, which makes stutters more apparent.
Somehow, despite all this fluctuation - I did not perceive any stuttering during gameplay. Thus the main spikes - beyond the barely recognizeable ~1ms fluctuations - must've occured during unimportant parts of the game.

Now, OW is a very horrible game to keep a steady framerate at - and here's the kicker; this was achieved on a 3600, the poopiest of the Zen 2 CPUs with clockspeeds significantly below what all the others can achieve.
Now, of course it does help to have a decent RAM overclock - but still, you can achieve those on better CPUs too. :)

So realistically - do you actually need those MHz? Eh, not really. They're fantastic already.
Now - if the i9-9900KS that they're specifically boasting about 5 GHz on won't hit 5 GHz, that would be quite the achievement.
 
Did you really post this after beta bioses where available without once referencing what the fix brought? Way to be ahead of the curve on this one, lol. Disappointed with some of the content here, recently came from hardocp because I don't trust much else, but articles like this make me question that.
 
Ready4Droid said:
Did you really post this after beta bioses where available without once referencing what the fix brought? Way to be ahead of the curve on this one, lol. Disappointed with some of the content here, recently came from hardocp because I don't trust much else, but articles like this make me question that.
Click to expand...

You do realize that at the time this was written, the fix hadn't been leaked? It was known that a fix was coming, but not what the performance would look like, or even if the boost clocks were actually fixed. You can never assume that anything will just work as AMD suggests when it comes to AGESA code. Not only that, but the fix isn't even official yet. The beta BIOS revisions have been leaked, but I haven't seen any official releases from the manufacturers. AMD has deployed a fix to motherboard vendors, but those fixes are still being validated by the OEMs.

I've actually tested AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA on one motherboard and it didn't resolve the boost clocking issue with our Ryzen 9 3900X. There are still allot of unknowns with the AGESA update.
 
Dan_D said:
You do realize that at the time this was written, the fix hadn't been leaked? It was known that a fix was coming, but not what the performance would look like, or even if the boost clocks were actually fixed. You can never assume that anything will just work as AMD suggests when it comes to AGESA code. Not only that, but the fix isn't even official yet. The beta BIOS revisions have been leaked, but I haven't seen any official releases from the manufacturers. AMD has deployed a fix to motherboard vendors, but those fixes are still being validated by the OEMs.

I've actually tested AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA on one motherboard and it didn't resolve the boost clocking issue with our Ryzen 9 3900X. There are still allot of unknowns with the AGESA update.
Click to expand...
Says article was released on the 12th... A few days after leaked bioses started coming out. Just seems this close to knowing for sure if the fix will work or not as an odd time to post this type of article. Had this been posted before AMD said they had a fix incoming would have made a lot more sense. I agree there are still a lot of unknowns and this editorial does nothing to fill those in. I will happily read the updates once the official released bioses come out (good or bad), but this editorial just felt like it was either late to the party (as in it could have been at the end of last month and made sense) or to early (no new info, knowing a 'fix' is due and leaked bioses are ready showing up) to be useful.
 
ASRock just released their official ABBA update yesterday. On my X570 Steel Legend, my 3600X is now boosting to the suggested boost frequency on all cores when they get hit with a single threaded workload. In BL3 last night HW Info showed all 6 cores as hitting 4.4GHz, when it would usually max at 4.3GHz before. Real world performance, as would be expected from 100MHz on a single core, was negligible to nothing at all in every test.
 
Ready4Droid said:
Says article was released on the 12th... A few days after leaked bioses started coming out. Just seems this close to knowing for sure if the fix will work or not as an odd time to post this type of article. Had this been posted before AMD said they had a fix incoming would have made a lot more sense. I agree there are still a lot of unknowns and this editorial does nothing to fill those in. I will happily read the updates once the official released bioses come out (good or bad), but this editorial just felt like it was either late to the party (as in it could have been at the end of last month and made sense) or to early (no new info, knowing a 'fix' is due and leaked bioses are ready showing up) to be useful.
Click to expand...

Do... you... I mean....

You realize it takes work and effort to gather the results in a repeatable scientific manner as to make them worthwhile and not just man on the street level data. I mean... it probably takes a week or more just to correlate the data, THEN write, edit, and publish an full blown article.

If you have some magic effing wand to do this more power to you. But get over yourself otherwise. Their results were from DAYS before the leak happened and they published the article they had on hand so as to NOT waste their effort. Just because it doesn't include the beta reviews you wan't doesn't make it a bad article.

Wow... just... wow...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top