Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Another reason for me not to buy AMD anymore

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    OK, so you're saying "standard" should be defined as "minimum under any and all conditions, even with degraded cooling and running a synthetic stress test" rather than "normal/usual/whatever" ? That would mean you basically have minimum** and maximum clocks with no indication of where the processsor normally runs, which seems like a big step backwards to me.

    Server parts (GPU and CPU) do tend to have more conservative specs than client parts (for all vendors AFAICS), and I believe operation under sustained workloads is part of the reason for that.

    ** I know "minimum" isn't quite the right word here either because the processor can also be put into lower power states but it's tough even finding the right words given how aggressively modern hardware manages its own clocks.
    These tests were done with new systems, no degraded cooling, ... . What I am saying is that a CPU that is marketed as 3.8GHz CPU should be able to sustain that speed with any workload, of course under default conditions (boxed cooler, standard case without blocked airflow, normal room temperatures, ...). If the CPU is not able to do that than there is a problem, either with AMD's labeling or with the dimensioning of AMD's boxed cooler. In both cases the fault lies definitely on AMD's side and can only be fixed by AMD.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default

    The drop to 3.4 happens only in linpack which is an extreme case.
    They got it from intel.com which means that who knows what it does when it detects AMD cpu.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    92

    Default

    When I've got all cores blazing during a compile job, the last thing I would want is my CPU to drop its frequency. Don't tell me some benchmark stresses the CPU more than a "make -j10" where all cores are 100% utilized. (Try that for a Chromium build... it's relentless for the whole job, for a good 25 minutes. I chose that example because it has a lot of objects that can be compiled in parallel, unlike some builds that wait more on dependencies when you use more jobs). I compile software pretty much every day. If that's outside of my CPU's "market segment" then I would want my money back. Since when does the processor manufacturer decide what applications people are going to run?

    I don't believe their PR bullshit for a second, that it's only Linpack. I too consider that akin to "fraud". Also disingenuous is the "it would be a problem and unfair if the tests ruined the lifespan of consumers' CPUs" statement. It's more of a problem, and unfair that AMD sells CPUs that can't even sustain running at their rated clock speeds. If that "ruins the lifespan" of the product, then it's a faulty product.

    I do not give one tapered turd about power consumption... I don't care how clever it is. The bottom line is that the processors deliver lower performance than advertised.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grogan View Post
    Don't tell me some benchmark stresses the CPU more than a "make -j10" where all cores are 100% utilized. (Try that for a Chromium build... it's relentless for the whole job, for a good 25 minutes.
    Compiles are pretty memory-intensive and *much* less demanding than compute-intensive tasks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grogan View Post
    Since when does the processor manufacturer decide what applications people are going to run?
    More precisely, processor manufacturers decide what applications people are *likely* to run during the product's market window and optimize for those applications and workloads. This includes power consumption as well as a lot of other aspects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grogan View Post
    I do not give one tapered turd about power consumption... I don't care how clever it is. The bottom line is that the processors deliver lower performance than advertised.
    Not sure if you had a chance to actually read the article but it seemed pretty clear that if you turn Turbo Core off then the processor runs at full speed.
    Last edited by bridgman; 04-05-2013 at 01:28 AM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    More precisely, processor manufacturers decide what applications people are *likely* to run during the product's market window and optimize for those applications and workloads. This includes power consumption as well as a lot of other aspects.
    I can't see a "This product may possibly not be able to run at the specified clockspeed when you run workloads that AMD considers not to be mainstream!" warning on the CPU packages.

    if you turn Turbo Core off then the processor runs at full speed.
    So you have to disable an advertized feature of the CPU in order to make it running at nominal clockspeed. I don't know, but for me that doesn't magically make this less cheating from AMD's side.
    In reality, it should be as simple as that: If the CPU is not able to sustain its nominal clockspeed at 100% load under default conditions (as described by me above) then don't sell it as a CPU with exactly that clockspeed, since it simply isn't such a CPU.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,566

    Default

    I haven't looked at the packages, but I suspect the spec sheets say something similar about Turbo Core. Read up on T-states for the Intel equivalent (clock frequency stays the same but the clock is stopped in short bursts to give the same effect as reducing frequency).

    >>In reality, it should be as simple as that: If the CPU is not able to sustain its nominal clockspeed at 100% load under default conditions (as described by me above) then don't sell it as a CPU with exactly that clockspeed, since it simply isn't such a CPU.

    I think it is that simple with Turbo Core disabled. That's what the article suggests anyways.

    Let's see if our CPU folks respond any further to the article.

    EDIT -- looks like the article was already updated and your response was to the AMD feedback. Sorry, I missed that.
    Last edited by bridgman; 04-05-2013 at 02:56 AM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    Now they are cheating on their processor clockspeeds
    Thermal throttling is a normal use case for ALL CPUs that overheating (including Intel). Just use a better case and cooling (enable HPC Mode in BIOS settings if availabe).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •