AMD pwns INTEL

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
I wouldn't really call 4.0GHz a good overclock, at least when you consider that the 1600X and 1800X does that just for boost. And the report I saw said that was only doable on the super high end overclocking boards and most board were just overheat VRM's like crazy when getting up above 3.5 and higher. At work otherwise I'd source it.
 

mistersprinkles

Active Member
I wouldn't really call 4.0GHz a good overclock, at least when you consider that the 1600X and 1800X does that just for boost. And the report I saw said that was only doable on the super high end overclocking boards and most board were just overheat VRM's like crazy when getting up above 3.5 and higher. At work otherwise I'd source it.

Darren can you cite the source when you get back from work? Not that I don't believe you or anything I just find it amazing that AMD still have their heads up their butts when it comes to power delivery (which was a joke on FX).

Also Curious if this was just an issue with ES chips that may (unlikely) be resolved with retail chips?

It's surprising that a 65/95W CPU package could put so much strain on power delivery but I don't really understand that kind of thing.
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
Still at work but we slowed down. :) Looks like it gets VRM hot at 3.8GHz-ish. Keep in mind this is just one person but still worth noting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5vqsqp/ryzen_1700_oc_40ghz_but_only_in_a_top_tier_mobo/

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...pu-discussion.18665505/page-401#post-30533503

From the sounds of it the Asus Crosshair and the AsRock Taichi are the best overclocking boards. I'm getting the Taichi if all goes according to plan.

I've pretty much gotten all my Ryzen news from www.reddit.com/r/AMD btw. Those guys are quick.
 

mistersprinkles

Active Member
I read that information between your two last posts. Pretty sad news. Sounds like a high-clock i5/i7 is still the go-to for gaming. Hopefully we will see higher clocking chips that are gentler on power delivery when the 4 and 6 core RYZEN parts hit the market. I'm not interested in those, though.

I'll be upgrading in about 2 to 3 years as far as my platform is concerned so we'll see what the landscape looks like then.

BTW What is this 1600X cpu that people keep referencing? AFAIK AMD only announced 1800x, 1700x and 1700 did I miss something?
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
I read that information between your two last posts. Pretty sad news. Sounds like a high-clock i5/i7 is still the go-to for gaming. Hopefully we will see higher clocking chips that are gentler on power delivery when the 4 and 6 core RYZEN parts hit the market. I'm not interested in those, though.

I'll be upgrading in about 2 to 3 years as far as my platform is concerned so we'll see what the landscape looks like then.

BTW What is this 1600X cpu that people keep referencing? AFAIK AMD only announced 1800x, 1700x and 1700 did I miss something?
Anybody that hasn't seen this needs to. Details all the CPU's and Motherboards expected so far. Of note, the 1600X is going to be clocked higher than this thread says.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5v4hqt/overview_ryzen_cpu_am4_mainboard_lineup_updated/

Based off this we're waiting until April at least to see R5's drop. The 1600X seems like the ultimate choice as it's clock speeds match the 1800X just 2/4 less cores/threads. Given that most things don't even use 8 threads let alone 12 or 16 gaming performance should be almost identical while costing $140 less. Less cores also means less heat which means potential higher overclocks than the 1800X, again giving it a gaming advantage.

The 1600X also runs at a 95 watt TDP, whereas even the 1700 is 65 watt. Seems dumb to pay more for a chip that likely will clock noticeably worse, lack the XFR features, and overall game worse based off these assumptions.

db7f271801028073a83cafa1d5ca846956fc0be7e4654e603c92c5d676945609.jpg
 
Last edited:

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
I think the 1700 is for OEMs honestly. It makes no sense as an enthusiast chip.
This is correct. It's awesome that it can pull that performance at 65 watts, but I'm hugely looking forward to overclocking and it makes no sense to buy it for that over a cheaper 1600X and I flat can't afford a 1700X. I don't even need a 1600X performance level but it's gonna happen.
 

mistersprinkles

Active Member
This is correct. It's awesome that it can pull that performance at 65 watts, but I'm hugely looking forward to overclocking and it makes no sense to buy it for that over a cheaper 1600X and I flat can't afford a 1700X. I don't even need a 1600X performance level but it's gonna happen.

Get the 1700X bro. U know u want it.

I think the 1700 is for OEMs honestly. It makes no sense as an enthusiast chip.

A logical assumption.

BTW what is AMD's definition of BOOST here? Is it like Intel's Turbo where the CPU will ramp up 2 cores? Does AMD's turbo only ramp up 4 of 8 cores? Or all 8? Or what? How does it work? Information is scarce as far as I can see for those who want full details of how these things will work.
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
Get the 1700X bro. U know u want it.



A logical assumption.

BTW what is AMD's definition of BOOST here? Is it like Intel's Turbo where the CPU will ramp up 2 cores? Does AMD's turbo only ramp up 4 of 8 cores? Or all 8? Or what? How does it work? Information is scarce as far as I can see for those who want full details of how these things will work.

The current info out there seems to point to the fact that XFR can dynamically overclock each individual core based on usage and cooling. So in theory if you're running an older game that's only single threaded you'll have 1 core clocked at 4.7GHz (or whatever) and the rest will downclock to allow you to get just that core at a faster speed. The tech sounds cool but it's all a matter of how well it works.

I still think manual overclocking will yield overall highest results, but the utility is there to squeeze extra performance where it can.
 

Intel_man

VIP Member
The current info out there seems to point to the fact that XFR can dynamically overclock each individual core based on usage and cooling. So in theory if you're running an older game that's only single threaded you'll have 1 core clocked at 4.7GHz (or whatever) and the rest will downclock to allow you to get just that core at a faster speed. The tech sounds cool but it's all a matter of how well it works.

I still think manual overclocking will yield overall highest results, but the utility is there to squeeze extra performance where it can.
Intel has this on the Broadwell-E. Not sure if it only exists on the 6950X, but it's on there. It also detects (most likely binned by Intel) the core that can be overclocked the highest and the individual core clock is based off that through the AVX ratio. Its probably one of the reasons why it's not a well known fact about it since that thing is so goddamn expensive.
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
Intel has this on the Broadwell-E. Not sure if it only exists on the 6950X, but it's on there. It also detects (most likely binned by Intel) the core that can be overclocked the highest and the individual core clock is based off that through the AVX ratio. Its probably one of the reasons why it's not a well known fact about it since that thing is so goddamn expensive.
Won't be anymore at least. :D
 
Top