• 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 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

Scougar said:
We have people like this in the paintball world as well. Swinging from super mouthy drama negative to super mouthy drama positive and vice versa. If the casual observer comes along and reads these things, it is damaging.
Click to expand...

You get it in anything, i did airsoft for a while, the toxicity is what made me quit.
 
Silent_Scone said:
Build complete :)

vrh1hf4gco241.jpg
Click to expand...

Thats stunning, well done sir!
 
Chrisc said:
It was honestly one of the best hobbies ive had, yet 12 months in and i was done with it.
Click to expand...

Watched some of the vids out there and thought it was the mutts. Trouble is, with emerging pastimes is that it's spoilt by the people that thought, as they were first into the hobby, that therefore they must be the best to run a club. But I would love to have ago at "Insurgency Sandstorm" @ BB reality.

Shame that a few ruined it for you as the loadout is expensive. Please come and use your BB at mine... for the cats!
 
Woodsta888 said:
Watched some of the vids out there and thought it was the mutts. Trouble is, with emerging pastimes is that it's spoilt by the people that thought, as they were first into the hobby, that therefore they must be the best to run a club. But I would love to have ago at "Insurgency Sandstorm" @ BB reality.

Shame that a few ruined it for you as the loadout is expensive. Please come and use your BB at mine... for the cats!
Click to expand...

I played at a place up near alton towers called 'Anzio' there are a few videos on youtube, have a look its a great site.

Like any hobby, you could keep it as cheap or as expensive as you want. I ran a couple of G&G rifles, an MP5 and an M4 a long with a couple of Gas pistols like a glock G17 the guns were about £120-£150 each. some of the more fancier guns could run into the hundreds, then it became a dick waving competition when people decided to put military spec sights etc onto their guns. id love to give it another go, but some old friends still play it and by the sounds of it, the drama is still there.
 
Grim5 said:
Click to expand...

Pretty much why anyone should be getting a 3900X or 3950X over a 9900k/ks. If you buy those high end CPUs, you're gonna get a high end mobo and RAM and tune it anyway. In gaming, the 3900X and 3950X are barely behind the 9000K and 9900KS and it is pretty dependent on titles with newer games tending to be much closer including some where AMD performs better.

Meanwhile in other workloads and general usage that are not heavily bottlenecked by higher memory latency, it's a day and night difference where the 3900X and 3950X win hands down.

Still you'll get quite a few die hards buying the Intels because of a 5-10fps difference at most, just like how in the P4 era you still had people buying those because they were a bit faster than the athlons in a few select titles and scenarios.
 
Just been having a look into the Power Plans, as im currently using the Ryzen Balanced, which has my 3700X doing an average 4.20GHz on the desktop, when looking at the Task Manager.

If i change it back to the Recommended Balanced one, it only does average 3.20GHz, and in the Advanced Options, the only difference i can see is, the Minimum Processor State, is on 5% (which i may have changed it too sometime, i can't remember now :p) where as on the Ryzen Balanced Plan, its on 0%.

Ive ran a couple of benchies, to see if while im on the Recommended Balanced Plan, i get any drops in performance or anything, but i don't, everythings the same, apart from the lower clock speed on the desktop, the Recommended Balanced Plan gives.

Ive done a bit of googling on it, and found where someone asked if the Ryzen Power Plans were still needed on Zen 2, and AMD Robert gave this reply, so im wondering now, wether to just use the Recommended Balanced Plan, instead. :p

AMD_Robert
Technical Marketing · 11 months ago · edited 11 months ago
  1. The original AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan was primarily intended to disable core parking. Waking a parked core has a latency penalty that costs performance, especially in gaming.

  2. At the time this plan was conceived, the out-of-box "Balanced" plan that comes with Win10 (AKA "OEM Balanced") disabled core parking for Intel processors, but not AMD processors. Ergo, an artificial performance disadvantage was being applied to AMD processors.

  3. Beginning with Win10 RS4 (IIRC), the OEM Balanced plan also disabled core parking for AMD processors.
3a) At the time Win10 RS4 was released, you may have seen chatter about RS4 improving game performance on Ryzen. These people almost certainly had not installed the AMD chipset drivers with the plan, because the disabling of Core Parking in the OEM Balanced plan was giving them the performance uplift the Ryzen Balanced plan would have given them.

4) Now that Ryzen Balanced and OEM Balanced both disable Core Parking, the need for Ryzen Balanced is diminished. 99% of the time, these plans will offer equal performance.

4a) However, the Ryzen Balanced plan still sets a minimum clockspeed of 90% on a core that is actively under load. This eliminates some small latency penalties that occur when ramping a CPU from low clock to high clock. This will give the Ryzen Balanced plan a small edge in select cases. It's a few percent, and I've only seen it measured in synthetic workloads.

5) In all cases, Ryzen depends on core C-states (e.g. cc6 sleep) for power management rather than winding down the clockspeed. This is why Ryzen has a "high" p2 of approx. 2.2GHz. It's much more efficient just to sleep the core at an extremely low clockspeed and voltage, rather than running it awake at a low clock.

5a) The good news is that Balanced/Ryzen Balanced/High Performance all have approximately the same power consumption as a result of this decision.

5b) The bad news is that Windows cannot probe the clock (only a VID) when a core is in cc6, as a probe would wake the core and kill the power savings. So Task Manager and 3rd party utilities just report the last active clockspeed that was observed before the core went to sleep. So your core might jump right from 4GHz to sleep, and Windows will still report 4GHz on the core.

That's the complete story.

tl;dr: use balanced or ryzen balanced for Ryzen, 2nd Gen Ryzen, Threadripper, etc. It's fine.
Click to expand...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/a9q96u/is_the_ryzen_balanced_power_plan_still_relevant/
 
Last edited:
Historically I always used high performance windows plan and manually gone in and changed minimum cpu state to 5% on it.

Now that I am on Ryzen I use the Ryzen balance plan but there is no difference in performance for me.
 
TNA said:
Now that I am on Ryzen I use the Ryzen balance plan but there is no difference in performance for me.
Click to expand...

Yeah same, i think i'll just leave it on the Recommended Balanced, for the lower desktop speed. :p

Changing the Processor Minimum State % on the Ryzen Balanced Plan, doesn't do anything for me, just stays the same, around 4.20GHz.
 
Killer7xx said:
Pretty much why anyone should be getting a 3900X or 3950X over a 9900k/ks. If you buy those high end CPUs, you're gonna get a high end mobo and RAM and tune it anyway. In gaming, the 3900X and 3950X are barely behind the 9000K and 9900KS and it is pretty dependent on titles with newer games tending to be much closer including some where AMD performs better.

Meanwhile in other workloads and general usage that are not heavily bottlenecked by higher memory latency, it's a day and night difference where the 3900X and 3950X win hands down.

Still you'll get quite a few die hards buying the Intels because of a 5-10fps difference at most, just like how in the P4 era you still had people buying those because they were a bit faster than the athlons in a few select titles and scenarios.
Click to expand...

in their testing with the good memory the 9900ks is only 2% faster in lows than the 3950x.

why anyone would buy the 9900ks for 2% extra is crazy.
 
BRIGGBOY81 said:
Ok this seems to be my max cb r20 oc, 4.25 @ 1.30625. it will run at [email protected] but any lower than that performance starts to decrease. However the temps are 5-6° cooler @1.29 so now trying to decide if the .5mhz is worth the heat. Average piece of silicone but still a nice upgrade from the 1700 @3.8 and very happy.
Click to expand...

for my 3600 4.225 @ 1.3125 is about the limit in ryzen master. I am having trouble getting a stable 4.25
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Go for the 4.3Ghz. 1.35v is fine, hell my 3600 runs at 1.38v stock under all core load. You should try tightening them ram timings up, that will give you more of a performance boost in stuff like games over a few Mhz on the core.
Click to expand...
if I leave my 3600 to do its own thing then from HW monitor it claims that the vcore max at 1.475 . overall I get a constant 4.175 ghz and the vcore then drops down into the 1.34 ish (keep fluctuating so difficult to know)

I suppose that this shows that the autoclocking of the ryzen isn't afraid to temporarily push the voltage up - and that manual tuning is best to get and keep the voltage lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom