No overclocking still... This is likely to be the first CPU I've owned in over twenty years that I won't be overclocking. I don't really see much point in it, that might change but I doubt it.
Not saying you should. What I'm saying is, your CPU behaves as expected with "lesser" hardware compared to mine. I should be seeing at least the same boost speeds as you, but I'm not...
Meh. I don't get the whole hubbub from the laymen. If the 3700X can stay at 4200MHz on not only one core but all the way up to 16T where it still stays at roughly 4200MHz, that's a win for me. I'm tired of shelling out premium money and still having a fair amount of performance locked outside my reach simply because Intel's products can't qualify under the company's own longstanding definition of TDP without trying to wriggle their way out into the pure comedy that is P-states. Ryzen 3000's sustained performance is impressive and on the money, that's what matters. All of the performance is there on the table for us who won't/can't bring in water to tame the comical power draw and heat output that said 9900K shits out at its advertised clock speeds. Not to mention that the 9900K still sits at that price, lmao.
That said, the lawyer in me also knows exactly what's coming - I mean, AMD made a bit of a blunder here. Lots of people still are fooled though; class action lawsuits accomplish exactly zero aside from generously lining the pockets of participating law firms. It'll be amusing to see the reactions of the vengeful "AMD has betrayed my trust" type as they realize that they don't actually stand to gain anything from the legal proceedings.
I suppose that AMD wanted to soften enthusiasts' ego damage upon seeing the clock speed hit from crossing 10nm, but even the advertised clocks are not that high. If they had just advertised a conservative 4200MHz for the 3700X for example, and touted efficiency a bit more and "just wait for the reviews, you'll see how good it is", they would have been just fine. Ryzen 3000 speaks for itself really; actually marginally better IPC than Intel at sane power and temperatures, so the 9900K's 5GHz boasting would still be smoke and mirrors.
Intel will have to go through the same "clock shock" when it gets down below 10nm, so I don't see what the big deal is.
The "hubbub" as you put it, is about the fact that AMD is marketing their products as something that's unachievable for a lot of their customers and doesn't provide any reasoning as to why it's happening.
Look, as I keep saying, I'm not upset with the performance, what bugs me is the fact that I paid extra for something that doesn't deliver what it says on the tin. In fact, I seemingly paid more for something that performs less, as there are 3700X chips that outperform my 3800X in benchmarks.
As far as my system goes, it's quiet, it runs cool (if you don't consider that the chipset hits 80C+ at times) and it's powerful, it's just not what I apparently paid for when it comes to the CPU.
Some people aren't having any issues, so there's nothing to complain about, but quite a lot of people are, so AMD needs to step up and explain what's going on and then do something about it.
