Forgive me, but the statement:
"I'm beginning to believe this may be a hardware issue. A BIOS update can't fix that."
indicates that you have come across new information "presumably the videos you linked" that have caused you consider that a hardware fault is to blame. Furthermore, I find it puzzling how an individual could speculate on whether or not they believe something as they should probably just know, which lead me to conclude that this was a new statement and no longer part of the speculation that preceded it. And, beyond that, if we really want to analyze it, the statement doesn't seem to contain any speculation at all from what I can tell.
"Some speculation on my part. AMD doesn't release MB BIOS'. They release a package to MB vendors and then those vendors have to incorporate it into their BIOS for their boards."
Well this isn't speculation, it is true, AMD releases AGESA microcode that motherboard vendors incorporate into their UEFI releases, great.
"I don't know if the vendors will have new BIOS' on the 10th." Also not speculation, simply a statement.
"I'm beginning to believe this may be a hardware issue. A BIOS update can't fix that." Again, not speculation, just a statement of what the author believes.
"I said it was speculation. Please don't cherry pick my statements." I would offer, that I did not "cherry pick" anything, but that the sentence structure and verbiage used led me to the most logical conclusion. Since that is not what was intended, I would suggest the following correction.
AMD doesn't release MB BIOS'. They release a package to MB vendors and then those vendors have to incorporate it into their BIOS for their boards. I don't know if the vendors will have new BIOS' on the 10th.
Some speculation on my part, this may be a hardware issue which is something a UEFI (these are not technically BIOS anymore) update can't fix that.
"I'm glad you were able to hit 4.6 on one of your cores. I could not duplicate your result."
I seem to be failing to get the point across. The 4.6 GHz is only possible if I disable precision boost completely, manually set the voltage to the boost voltage, and then run the CBR20 single core benchmark. This was merely an experiment to see if a single core could hit 4.6GHz at the voltage used by precision boost with the algorithm removed from the equation, and it can. Once precision boost is turned back on, the core no longer boosts to 4.6 despite the identical voltage being applied in my manual test. This indicates that the silicon itself is not to blame, and can hit the advertised clocks within the voltage threshold already used. The problem must lie elsewhere. This isn't a solution however, as running the system with a manual voltage of 1.48 would be decidedly unsafe for multicore boosts.
So again, I stand by my statement that the creators of those videos should make sure to only list conclusions supported by the data. And that "failure to do so is not only negligent journalism, it is poor science and damages the reputation of those who engage in it."
