AMD CPU/Socket Discussion Thread

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
Uuuuhhhhh. The single core thingy makes it a lot more interesting. Talk about power efficiency ey? Man this just keeps getting better...
Yeah if it works very well that'll be cool but seems kinda gimmicky to me so not sure what to expect.

If you manually overclock I wonder if it's still possible to use that. Hope so. Looks like AMD also has their own CPU OC software that lets you tailor specific cores and the like. Very similar to Wattman in their GPU drivers, which works well and made me stop use Afterburner. Wonder if it supports individual app profiles like Wattman does.

ZwY05FK.jpg


Looks like I'll be waiting till April for the 1600X. Annoying, but kinda expected that.

JEolJtB.jpg
 

Deadpool

Active Member
Yeah if it works very well that'll be cool but seems kinda gimmicky to me so not sure what to expect.

If you manually overclock I wonder if it's still possible to use that. Hope so. Looks like AMD also has their own CPU OC software that lets you tailor specific cores and the like. Very similar to Wattman in their GPU drivers, which works well and made me stop use Afterburner. Wonder if it supports individual app profiles like Wattman does.

ZwY05FK.jpg


Looks like I'll be waiting till April for the 1600X. Annoying, but kinda expected that.

JEolJtB.jpg

Oh man if that works as expected it´s going to be nuts. If it wasn´t for the single core overclock I don´t think I´d buy an X version, unless there is no big price difference.

Also that software seems great.

What about the voltaje though?
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
Oh man if that works as expected it´s going to be nuts. If it wasn´t for the single core overclock I don´t think I´d buy an X version, unless there is no big price difference.

Also that software seems great.

What about the voltaje though?
The voltage in that particular picture? I wouldn't read too much into it. The RAM speed is also only 1067 which seems off.

Heck, the voltage control in Wattman for my 390 STILL doesn't work quite right.
 

Deadpool

Active Member
The voltage in that particular picture? I wouldn't read too much into it. The RAM speed is also only 1067 which seems off.

Heck, the voltage control in Wattman for my 390 STILL doesn't work quite right.

No I meant that it has to reboot to adjust teh voltaje right? So that means it can´t overclock that much "on the fly".

And it can´t adjust each core´s voltaje alone, can it?
 

beers

Moderator
Staff member
No I meant that it has to reboot to adjust teh voltaje right? So that means it can´t overclock that much "on the fly".

And it can´t adjust each core´s voltaje alone, can it?
Why would it have to reboot? It should apply the new values as they are selected.

Similar to the Intel Extreme Tuning utility (XTU) where you can adjust voltages within the GUI.
 

Deadpool

Active Member
Why would it have to reboot? It should apply the new values as they are selected.

Similar to the Intel Extreme Tuning utility (XTU) where you can adjust voltages within the GUI.

Huh I never used that. Oh man you are right actually even Overdrive allows you to do that. For some reason I remembered reading in the Overdrive manual that required reboot. It was about the NB multiplier. Things got mixed in my head. My bad. Thanks for the clarification.
 

beers

Moderator
Staff member
That seems like a clickbait article to me. Less average fps when overclocked to 5ghz? Give me a break
 

Intel_man

VIP Member
Could be a stability thing. I've had it with GTA V before. I was experiencing more stuttering at 4.5ghz than 4.0ghz.

However, the comparison between the 7700k and the Ryzen should be the focal point of that graph!
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
Could be a stability thing. I've had it with GTA V before. I was experiencing more stuttering at 4.5ghz than 4.0ghz.

However, the comparison between the 7700k and the Ryzen should be the focal point of that graph!
We're both pointing that out because it makes me question the whole benchmark. They focus primarily on the min FPS and seem to gloss over that the average is 4 FPS lower on a much lower clocked chip. If anything that's almost a good thing for Ryzen if it can nearly match a 5GHz Intel while hitting 3.7GHz at most and likely running lower across multiple cores. 1700 is cheaper too and not really focused on gaming as the 1600X will likely game better than it for less money. GTA scales much better with clock speed than cores/threads.
 

Intel_man

VIP Member
Oh I'm not even worried about the comparison to the 5ghz chip. As stated in my previous post, I'm questioning the stability of that 5ghz clock.

But with the stock vs stock, the lower dip sucks. Luckily it's not low to the point of unplayable (<20fps). I would rather have a lower max, than a super low min fps. A high max, high avg, but low min suggests big spikes/stutters in game, for which I hate. Much rather have a lower max, higher avg, and higher min. Think of it like a bell curve distribution, but skewed to the right.

Keep in mind though, this hype for the chip is getting pretty wild. People are expecting performance better than what we have already, and that's well... not really true. The thing to take out of Ryzen is that we're getting performance at a lower price point, which will allow AMD to craw back some market share. This doesn't mean that we're getting faster chips than what Intel is making with the Kaby Lakes for average joes who won't benefit from high multi-core processing. However, it's great news for all consumers, both AMD and Intel users, as competition lowers cost (hopefully).

The hype for this thing is way too damn high though. High hopes = higher chance of disappointment. This kinda applies for everything and not just in this particular situation. So to all of you who read this, calm down and let's see what happens when it does eventually come out.
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
Oh I'm not even worried about the comparison to the 5ghz chip. As stated in my previous post, I'm questioning the stability of that 5ghz clock.

But with the stock vs stock, the lower dip sucks. Luckily it's not low to the point of unplayable (<20fps). I would rather have a lower max, than a super low min fps. A high max, high avg, but low min suggests big spikes/stutters in game, for which I hate. Much rather have a lower max, higher avg, and higher min. Think of it like a bell curve distribution, but skewed to the right.

Keep in mind though, this hype for the chip is getting pretty wild. People are expecting performance better than what we have already, and that's well... not really true. The thing to take out of Ryzen is that we're getting performance at a lower price point, which will allow AMD to craw back some market share. This doesn't mean that we're getting faster chips than what Intel is making with the Kaby Lakes for average joes who won't benefit from high multi-core processing. However, it's great news for all consumers, both AMD and Intel users, as competition lowers cost (hopefully).

The hype for this thing is way too damn high though. High hopes = higher chance of disappointment. This kinda applies for everything and not just in this particular situation. So to all of you who read this, calm down and let's see what happens when it does eventually come out.
Agreed with all of this. Just that article and benchmark strike me as a poor comparison.

I will say that there's a definite power consumption improvement on Ryzen vs Intel's current lineup. Their naming scheme and product line also seemed to be trying to force Intel down a notch so to speak in their naming. The 1600X is clearly designed to fill the price point of the i5 but the performance is more along the lines of an i7. Will be interested to see how that all plays out.
 
Top