Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>a lot of the chiplets sold as 3900X are not fast enough to hit the clocks advertised for 3900X

Do you have some sort of source for this claim?




der8auer has done extensive testing on multiple CPUs (he had 12 samples) and has discussed the topic.

https://youtu.be/WXbCdGENp5I?t=119

A lot of reviewers have noted similar things, but often are working with singular samples and didn't want to make too much of a stink without more data, but the problem is widespread. Out of all of der8auer's CPUs, only one hit its advertised boost clocks, and it was one of the lower-end CPUs with a less ambitious target to hit.

It may be a problem with early AGESA firmware, and silicon quality will definitely go up over time, but at least at this point in time AMD has certainly falsely advertised the clocks these CPUs are capable of achieving.


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


Forums are not reputable sources unless it is insiders leaking info that can be verified through other means.


They might not be definitive sources, but they can definitely be the canary that triggers an investigation by somebody more authoritative.

As it stands, this mine has some dead canaries.


claim:

> ...but one of the underlying problems here is chip quality

supposed justification:

> ...every forum pretty much

That's hearsay not actual justification. And intel has a reputation for dirty play.


The justification was for the statement that chips aren't hitting their clocks. That is not a controversial statement.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: