Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Another reason for me not to buy AMD anymore

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

    Default Another reason for me not to buy AMD anymore

    Now they are cheating on their processor clockspeeds: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...igh_Loads.html

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,052

    Default

    Hm, I'm not a native english speaker but the english in the article is rather poor.

    The quote at the end does have an opening quotation mark but not a closing one. They also don't say where they got that quote from. Googling it only shows http://www.hitechreview.com/it-produ...er-load/42259/ and http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-T...e-342157.shtml referencing that article.

    Come on, even phoronix is better journalism.

    Phoronix may even have measured the actual performance loss.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,333

    Default

    I don't see this as cheating, all cpus will throttle if their thermal specs are exceeded.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    I don't see this as cheating, all cpus will throttle if their thermal specs are exceeded.
    The thermal specs should not be exceeded when the CPU is running at its advertised normal speed. If it does it is mislabelled and should be sold as lower-spec modell that runs at a speed it can bear without having to downclock itself when used as intended.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    The thermal specs should not be exceeded when the CPU is running at its advertised normal speed. If it does it is mislabelled and should be sold as lower-spec modell that runs at a speed it can bear without having to downclock itself when used as intended.
    The thermal specs are given for a specific ambient temperature. Running a processor at it's advertised normal speed in winter in northern Scotland and mid-summer in southern Spain will likely result in very different temperatures for the same workload.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Of course those test shouldn't be done at 50C ambient temperature, and I seriously doubt they were. In that case the Intel APUs should have the same problem, which they hadn't.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,333

    Default

    I think it's a case of consumer vs server workload. Consumer cpus (or gpus, see furmark) are not assumed to run at 100% for hours, so they're not thermally specced to withstand that, so that marketing can claim higher default numbers.

    Server cpus typically are specced for such workloads.

    Whether this is false advertising for consumer items is up for debate.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    I think it's a case of consumer vs server workload. Consumer cpus (or gpus, see furmark) are not assumed to run at 100% for hours, so they're not thermally specced to withstand that, so that marketing can claim higher default numbers.

    Server cpus typically are specced for such workloads.

    Whether this is false advertising for consumer items is up for debate.
    My consumer Phenom II X6 (125W version) can run under 100% load for hours without downclocking itself, the same is true for my laptop's Athlon QL-66 and was true for my former Core 2 Quads (Q6600 and Q9550) and Athlon X2 5200+ and any CPU I used before that.
    I can't see any reason why I should expect it to be different with newer CPUs, consumer or not. If a CPU is advertised as 3.8GHz model it has to run 3.8GHz, not 3.4GHz.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,574

    Default

    AFAIK thermal throttling to stay within a power envelope is a pretty new feature for CPUs (ours and others). I'm not sure the other CPUs you mentioned are even able to do that.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,675

    Default

    I don't think it is a good hardware design when the cpu consumes by default too much power that it has to lower clockspeeds on certain loads. Intel has power saving cpus as well, there the default clock is lower by default - the rest is done using turbo steps (for i5+). Turbo boost has of course a power usage limit (can be set in firmware for oc). So basically AMD should rebrand the cpus and use a lower default and more turbo steps. A cpu that does not run a specified speed under all loads is a joke.

Posting Permissions

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