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.
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.
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.Quote:
if you turn Turbo Core off then the processor runs at full speed.
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 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.