PC Graphics

[Thanny]

Has AMD gone the way of nVidia with boost clocks?  With nVidia, the advertised boost clock is a meaningless number, since all their cards automatically overclock themselves at stock.

Based on the reviews I'm seeing for RDNA 2 cards, it looks like the same is true now with AMD.  The advertised maximum boost for the 6800 XT is 2250MHz, with a game clock of 2015MHz.  Yet all the reviews show the cards sustaining clock speeds over 2300MHz.  At stock.

Are the cards actually automatically overclocking themselves as power and temperature permits?  Or is the clock speed being reported just incorrect?

[goodplay]

RDNA1 could also run higher, probably listed specs are to cover themselves from claims of 'not performing as advertised'.

[Thanny]

So I looked at a few reviews of the 5700 XT, and it does seem the clocks spiked above the top rated boost of 1905MHz, but basically stayed right around the "game clock" figure AMD published.

The 6800 cards seem to have an actual "game clock" that's higher than the max rated boost speed.  This is very new behavior, and more in line with what nVidia does (e.g. 2080 Ti has a 1545MHz max boost rating, but actually runs at 1900-2000MHz at stock).

I would much prefer more reliable specifications.  If the card can run at 2500MHz, temperature and power permitting, then show that as the max boost clock.  If it averages 2300MHz (which seems to be the case with the 6800 XT), show that as the "game clock".  Or perhaps a little bit lower to allow for people with poor case thermals.  But have the max boost actually be the max boost.  Nobody is expecting to reach the max value all the time, so there's no legitimate reason to under-report that figure, as nVidia does.

[goodplay]

Shall we play list specs to cpu bound games vs full gpu use.

That would be an interesting one for AIB makers to post ?