• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

Soldato
Joined
13 Jul 2004
Posts
20,079
Location
Stanley Hotel, Colorado
I only moved from 4GB on my Z68 system a couple of months ago

Yea its all down to what people want. 8 cores is going to be totally too much for some people and some software is still not using multiple cores like it should. Im very glad 8 cores is now going to be main stream, we've been stuck on 4 cores since that conroe chip in my mind. Thats the mainstream all this time not really going anywhere.

So yea new tech but will people use it ? in a lot of cases they wont do anything ambitious for years. My bottom line is if you seriously think you are going to be soaking up 8 cores of a powerful cpu but think 16gb is too much, thats pretty lobsided imo. I imagine it plays out different, software will be using 16gb, of course every case varies but I hope the trend is lots of cores used now etc
 
Associate
Joined
2 Jun 2016
Posts
2,382
Location
UK
The 'X' versions have XFR (auto)overclocking. I was thinking if you combine an 'x' with a decent cooler then you could just let the XFR do its thing. Would be handy to see reviews and how effective XFR is, though.
I think I saw earlier in the thread it added 100mhz if the cooling was good enough. It was bound to be fairly conservative.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Jan 2006
Posts
7,768
Location
Derbyshire
Remember back in the day when overclocking was something you did with low end chips to bring to the performance of high end ones and the high end ones didn't have much headroom because they fulfilled their potential at stock?
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
Hopefully they will release a Gaming 4 at some point to plug the gap. I agree though, as someone who was looking in that ~£150 price range there is not much of a choice.

Hopefully, there is a couple ASrock options in that price bracket it seems, a Fatality.... straight up nope from me, and a Killer.... urrggh, depends if that is just a random name for a killer board, or if it has money wasted on a killer nic.

Trying to think who else there is, there is an MSI around the same price bracket as well. I think the thing is, the £150 boards I'm seeing look more like £120 boards and the £200 boards should be a real option at £150-160 and offer decent value if you want to spend the extra. I mentioned before, with the pricing on the CPUs, it seems unlikely that AMD is trying to milk the chipsets, which are more basic being that Zen is a SOC, so more of it is on the CPU and included in the price of the CPU rather than mobo.

The old days of £80-95 for a really decent board then £130 for boards pushing well into top tier, motherboards are frankly getting cheaper. The chipset costs have gone down significantly, the expensive many more traces parallel connections are all but gone which saves a lot of complexity. Brexit should have pushed these up £20, not £60 imo. I think this is mobo makers having had a good run with Intel and just matching up prices rather than passing on the savings of cheaper chipsets and boards from AMD.


Another factor is X99, this literally costs quite a bit more, more pci-e lanes, quad channel memory, more I/O. I got a MSI X99 something or other board for £170, that was at a time where X99 significantly outpriced the mainstream in general.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
17 Sep 2007
Posts
554
Finding more information on German Forums. This is mentioned by Volker

Link to his other insights including overclocking potential.
https://www.computerbase.de/forum/member.php?u=493
lkx777
Junior Member
(Today, 04:45 PM)
Quote

#1463
Originally Posted by funo

regarding the "X" versions
The lead test guy (currently in SF) of the German site Computerbase (highly respected site) just posted on their forums that the rumors surrounding the X versions are completely untrue and it is NOT JUST the automatic overclock but something else they are not allowed to talk about yet.

X Hype?

A few pages later he also mentions that Ryzen doesn't have any headroom for overclocking when under water or air cooled, so most likely nothing beyond stock clocks for the average user.

Volker also replies to this question

The X means only that the CPU with appropriate cooling the clock automatically raised ... Guarantees but you can not but the 1700 also the 1800x guess creates
wink.gif


Volkers Answer Below

No. The X has nothing at all to do with it and does not stand for XFR either. That is simply a misconception thanks to the rumored kitchen. And yes that is guaranteed, because I am in SFO with AMD. I can not say more
wink.gif
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
Afaik Intel only managed 5.2 GHz on their 6900k chip? On a different architecture I wouldn't expect the clock speeds to be equivalent.
Yes is down to the 14nm process. The chips are so dense these days, that they going to hit walls on how well are getting cooled.

And 5960X Haswell-E did 6Ghz on LN2. However the 5.14Ghz Ryzen beats the 6Ghz Haswell-E.

Imho the moment we move at 10nm or 7nm forget overclocking completely for both CPUs and GPUs :(
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Jul 2008
Posts
7,739
This XFR auto overclocking thing... I take it that this is like the equivalent of Intel Turbo Boost? In which case, do these Ryzen cpus have the equivalent of Intel Speedstep as well, where they downclock when the extra power is not required? Sorry, been out the cpu loop a while.
Thinking of moving over to AMD, are there any other things to think about that you would LOSE that you get with Intel? What about Virtualization technologies and support for Linux OS?
 
Associate
Joined
25 Oct 2013
Posts
1,793
Location
Kent
An overclockable motherboard and 1700 for sub £400!!! Holy ****** take my money and girlfriend!

I really can't see intel dropping the price of 6900k by 50%, they would need to drop it 55-60% to make it worth it.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
This XFR auto overclocking thing... I take it that this is like the equivalent of Intel Turbo Boost? In which case, do these Ryzen cpus have the equivalent of Intel Speedstep as well, where they downclock when the extra power is not required? Sorry, been out the cpu loop a while.
Thinking of moving over to AMD, are there any other things to think about that you would LOSE that you get with Intel? What about Virtualization technologies and support for Linux OS?

XFR is OVER the Turbo boost.
And yes the AMD chips will throttle down when extra grunt is not needed, while they will clock higher than base speed on 25mhz steps for much better power consumption.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Dec 2006
Posts
9,246
Location
@ManCave
XFR is if you have a very well cooled chip it allows it self to clock further thing GPU boost 3.0

The only issue i see with Ryzen is PCi-E lanes

Scenerio #1 - the high end gamer
Xfire/SLI
GPU #1 = 16
GPU #2 = 8

BAD No Lanes left for 10G Ethernet/NVME or Other capture cards

Scenerio #2 - The average Gamer
Gpu #1 = 16
NVME = 4

Good 4 lanes left

Scenario #3 video creators
Gpu #1 = 16
NVME = 4

Bad not enough for A Capture card

Scenerio #4 researcher

GPU #1 = 16 (CUDA)
8 left for another pcie devices you require.


So little lanes, could be a big issue unless they have Chipsets giving more, (reducing perf) its the only thing putting me off. heck you cant even do Xfire x16 x2 (not a huge difference, but to not have it?)

Most likely in most cases enough... but i have doubts..



 
Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2011
Posts
5,849
So im guessing the X on 1700x / 1800X probably denotes a binned chip that is stock clocked to a higher rating, all chips have XFR within them allowing them to push a bit further if the cooling is there? if this is true, then potentially the 1700 is the lottery option, the 1700X is the "i want reliable garaunteed performance with a little tinker room" and the 1800X is the "i just want to put chip in my mobo and get all the possible power without fiddling" chip?

With that said, is there any reason to buy an X370 Mobo if you dont really intend to use any more than a couple of SSD's, maybe an m.2 and a single GPU? Sounds like thats B350 territory? sure you get less USB slots but that can be worked around.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
Meh, X has to denote something, surely? It might just be warranty, like you can overclock these up to 1.45v without voiding warranty X 'overclocking' editions or, who knows. I'm not to desperate to pre-order, every mobo I've bought has somehow been ****, with some feature I hate. More willing to wait and hope prices drop a little on mobos and we're getting some early pricing.

Also very possible Intel will announce some pretty big price adjustments, I have said all along that AMD will likely price at the point that still makes sense after Intel adjusts pricing, so we'll see, but if Intel really tanks a few models, AMD might bring prices down a little further. They obviously didn't want to price too low because if Intel say weren't willing to go sub $500 on an 8 core, no point pricing yours too low, putting them up after Intel adjust pricing would be bad, so there could be wiggle room there.

I'm also wondering if early stock during the ramp might simply not be quite as good for overclocking.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
So im guessing the X on 1700x / 1800X probably denotes a binned chip that is stock clocked to a higher rating, all chips have XFR within them allowing them to push a bit further if the cooling is there? if this is true, then potentially the 1700 is the lottery option, the 1700X is the "i want reliable garaunteed performance with a little tinker room" and the 1800X is the "i just want to put chip in my mobo and get all the possible power without fiddling" chip?

With that said, is there any reason to buy an X370 Mobo if you dont really intend to use any more than a couple of SSD's, maybe an m.2 and a single GPU? Sounds like thats B350 territory? sure you get less USB slots but that can be worked around.

You are absolute right. Hence is making 1700 (non X) one of the good bargains if it can overclock to 4Ghz, with a B350 motherboard.
 
Associate
Joined
8 Jul 2013
Posts
2,089
Location
Middle age travellers site
So im guessing the X on 1700x / 1800X probably denotes a binned chip that is stock clocked to a higher rating, all chips have XFR within them allowing them to push a bit further if the cooling is there? if this is true, then potentially the 1700 is the lottery option, the 1700X is the "i want reliable garaunteed performance with a little tinker room" and the 1800X is the "i just want to put chip in my mobo and get all the possible power without fiddling" chip?

With that said, is there any reason to buy an X370 Mobo if you dont really intend to use any more than a couple of SSD's, maybe an m.2 and a single GPU? Sounds like thats B350 territory? sure you get less USB slots but that can be worked around.

Sounds about right...

I am just concerned why a pre order launch with no reviews it must have something to do with the X or the chip do not OC well which for most peeps would look bad ..hence the pre order launch..from what i have seen all ready AMD have something great ....just puts me off a little with no reviews
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
XFR is if you have a very well cooled chip it allows it self to clock further thing GPU boost 3.0

The only issue i see with Ryzen is PCi-E lanes

Scenerio #1 - the high end gamer
Xfire/SLI
GPU #1 = 16
GPU #2 = 8

BAD No Lanes left for 10G Ethernet/NVME or Other capture cards


So little lanes, could be a big issue unless they have Chipsets giving more, (reducing perf) its the only thing putting me off. heck you cant even do Xfire x16 x2 (not a huge difference, but to not have it?)

Most likely in most cases enough... but i have doubts..


No mainstream mobos offer 2 16x pci-e for xfire/sli, most importantly, it's completely and utterly unnecessary. Second, it's not going to be 16x and 8x in sli/xfire, it will be 8x/8x, leaving the other 8 for network/nvme/sata/everything else, afaik that is. Which is the sensible way to go about it.

Also, for 99% of people, a m.2 nvme drive makes precisely zero performance difference. Most of the difference people feel is in booting up a fresh install with a new drive and being amazed it feels snappier, then slowly over days/weeks you add a second here to boot times, and lose a little snappyness as you put more extensions into your browser, etc.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Sep 2014
Posts
3,437
Location
Scotland
Afaik Intel only managed 5.2 GHz on their 6900k chip? On a different architecture I wouldn't expect the clock speeds to be equivalent.

http://hwbot.org/submission/3352024_paralyzer2005_cpu_frequency_core_i7_6900k_5220_mhz

Yes Intel managed 5.220GHz at lower voltage 1.548V on 6900K, 4.8GHz at 1.306V is very good enough on water cooler perfect for 24/7 use and gaming.

I would be not very impressed if Ryzen 1800X cant run 4.8GHz stable on water cooler for 24/7 if voltage will be as high as 1.6V.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
I'm also wondering if early stock during the ramp might simply not be quite as good for overclocking.

Thats the tricky question. The first 1800X going to be very highly binned chips, but in 6 months we could see some better overclockers.
However, that didn't happened with the IB-E, H-E or B-E. On the contrary.
Initially release we had almost all products coming out of the Intel Puerto Rico plant with as good as possible overclocks, and then when the Malaysia plant hit the market few months later, everyone was worst overclocker.
 
Back
Top Bottom