That's not exclusive to numbers.
The problem is nothing manufactured on TSMC's 7nm node (A12 & Vega II) has so far managed to achieve more than a 200Mhz up lift from previous gen (12/14nm).
-
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 ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
Deleted member 209350
D
Deleted member 209350
Need more official news 
Getting tired of waiting!
Getting tired of waiting!
That's not exclusive to numbers.
The problem is nothing manufactured on TSMC's 7nm node (A12 & Vega II) has so far managed to achieve more than a 200Mhz up lift from previous gen (12/14nm).
If that is the same for ryzen 3000 we can only assume the engineering sample which went up against the 9900k was clocked around 4.5 ghz in which case you could guess the ipc gains are considerable for it to have edged a win with a 500mhz deficit...
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
The 9900k was running at default settings which would be 4.7GHz for a multithreaded program like Cinebench. Although Intel's devious marketing department boasts a turbo clock of 5GHz, that's only applicable to two of the cores while the other 6 cores are clocked much lower.
I've been quite optimistic about Zen2 myself. I don't see why AMD can't move to 7nm and improve their architecture at the same time. If Intel can get 5Ghz, I don't see why AMD can't if they put their mind to it.
I spent ages tweaking my 2700X after getting it, initially with all core OC's of up to 4.25Ghz, stable as a rock but a bit too warm for my liking. I'm on air using a Noctua though, not an AIO or loop. After weeks of playing around with the CPU and RAM timings I ended up switching back to XFR and just upping the BCLK. Now I get perfectly stable boosting across all cores at 4.5Ghz with lower temps than a 4.25Ghz all core OC. Benchmark results were better too, which surprised me. Think I've only ever seen the CPU hit 71C at full load.
Only thing that concerned me slightly were peak volts but they're not sustained and I've just come to terms with the fact that it could degrade the CPU over time. The 4.5Ghz single core boosts make up for it as far as I'm concerned and I've had no problems so far. Hence my thinking about the 3850X if indeed it does boost to 5.1Ghz. Wishful thinking maybe, but I can hope.
EDIT: Actually thinking about it, BFV peaked at 74C I believe.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
I've been quite optimistic about Zen2 myself. I don't see why AMD can't move to 7nm and improve their architecture at the same time. If Intel can get 5Ghz, I don't see why AMD can't if they put their mind to it.
I spent ages tweaking my 2700X after getting it, initially with all core OC's of up to 4.25Ghz, stable as a rock but a bit too warm for my liking. I'm on air using a Noctua though, not an AIO or loop. After weeks of playing around with the CPU and RAM timings I ended up switching back to XFR and just upping the BCLK. Now I get perfectly stable boosting across all cores at 4.5Ghz with lower temps than a 4.25Ghz all core OC. Benchmark results were better too, which surprised me. Think I've only ever seen the CPU hit 71C at full load.
Only thing that concerned me slightly were peak volts but they're not sustained and I've just come to terms with the fact that it could degrade the CPU over time. The 4.5Ghz single core boosts make up for it as far as I'm concerned and I've had no problems so far. Hence my thinking about the 3850X if indeed it does boost to 5.1Ghz. Wishful thinking maybe, but I can hope.
Have done similar but I didnt like the voltages so I just put it back to stock.
On a fully patched system for meltdown etc. that is actually quite plausible.
I've been quite optimistic about Zen2 myself. I don't see why AMD can't move to 7nm and improve their architecture at the same time. If Intel can get 5Ghz, I don't see why AMD can't if they put their mind to it.
I spent ages tweaking my 2700X after getting it, initially with all core OC's of up to 4.25Ghz, stable as a rock but a bit too warm for my liking. I'm on air using a Noctua though, not an AIO or loop. After weeks of playing around with the CPU and RAM timings I ended up switching back to XFR and just upping the BCLK. Now I get perfectly stable boosting across all cores at 4.5Ghz with lower temps than a 4.25Ghz all core OC. Benchmark results were better too, which surprised me. Think I've only ever seen the CPU hit 71C at full load.
Only thing that concerned me slightly were peak volts but they're not sustained and I've just come to terms with the fact that it could degrade the CPU over time. The 4.5Ghz single core boosts make up for it as far as I'm concerned and I've had no problems so far. Hence my thinking about the 3850X if indeed it does boost to 5.1Ghz. Wishful thinking maybe, but I can hope.
EDIT: Actually thinking about it, BFV peaked at 74C I believe.
what are the peak volts?
It would seem these chips can happily use quite high voltages given XFR even without PBO can hit 1.45v.
I'd expect R3 to push clocks a little higher than 200Mhz due to the fact that the A12 and Vega II are fairly high in transistor counts (higher densities = more heat) however i can't see it being 800Mhz higher, maybe 400Mhz at a push.
I've not seen the leak where an R3 edged a win over a 9900k, I'm guessing from what CuriousTomCat said it's a Cinebench result, if so it's sort of what i was referring to earlier about conflating IPC with performance and clock speed, yes it's beaten an 9900k but i wouldn't be surprised if it actually did that with a 100Mhz deficit, simply because Ryzen performs better in multi-threaded workloads than Intel on a clock-for-clock and core-to-core basis.
AMD aren't doing the fabricating so their hands are tied to a certain extent, yes they'll have plenty of input when it comes to the design rules but ultimately TSMC say what can or can't be done, AMD may have tweaked the design to work better within TSMC's design constraints but ultimately a fabless semiconductor company is never going to be able to match what a company with its own fabs can do.
As much as we all like to laugh at Intel for their delayed 10nm they've always ruled the roost when it comes to fabrication, they still do despite the hiccup with 10nm, that's not to say Intel are superior in every way as their over reliance on improvements from shrinking nodes and fabrication improvements have caused them to almost completely ignore improvements that can come from design changes, they've been using the same basic 'core' design with a few tweaks here and there for over a decade whereas AMD has been forced to think outside the box.
X470 Aorus Ultra Gaming, BCLK103.5, both XFR and PBO enabled, slight negative offset on VCORE but it does touch 1.55 on occasion.
Weirdly in the BIOS it says BCLK is bouncing around between 103.8 and 104.2, but it’s manually set at 103.5.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
I've been quite optimistic about Zen2 myself. I don't see why AMD can't move to 7nm and improve their architecture at the same time. If Intel can get 5Ghz, I don't see why AMD can't if they put their mind to it.
I spent ages tweaking my 2700X after getting it, initially with all core OC's of up to 4.25Ghz, stable as a rock but a bit too warm for my liking. I'm on air using a Noctua though, not an AIO or loop. After weeks of playing around with the CPU and RAM timings I ended up switching back to XFR and just upping the BCLK. Now I get perfectly stable boosting across all cores at 4.5Ghz with lower temps than a 4.25Ghz all core OC. Benchmark results were better too, which surprised me. Think I've only ever seen the CPU hit 71C at full load.
Only thing that concerned me slightly were peak volts but they're not sustained and I've just come to terms with the fact that it could degrade the CPU over time. The 4.5Ghz single core boosts make up for it as far as I'm concerned and I've had no problems so far. Hence my thinking about the 3850X if indeed it does boost to 5.1Ghz. Wishful thinking maybe, but I can hope.
EDIT: Actually thinking about it, BFV peaked at 74C I believe.
I remember reading about upping the base clock to improve it's single core performance elsewhere.
I was using 112 with the 1800X at the start, when the RAM speeds were real bad. But NVME had issues 106 and beyond lol.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Using 103.5 ish bclk I was hitting 1.55v at times, which I didnt like. Its hard to know what is "safe".
Wasn't a leak, it was a live demo during Lisa Su's CES Keynote. Carefully crafted like-for-like comparison saw an engineering sample 8-core Ryzen 3000 with an undisclosed clock speed beat a stock 9900K in Cinebench by a couple of points. And by stock I mean the 9900K was allowed to do its thing (apparently) and go all-core boost to 4.7GHz. Allegedly some tech commenters have taken so inside information and calculated the ES Ryzen's clock speed and IPC gain. but I can't find the sources now and can't remember what the numbers were. But that ES Ryzen was only using a single chiplet with space for a 2nd clearly visible (including PCB traces for it).
Be nice to see some proper competition going on in the 8c/16t area - when I upgrade I want a proper jump from my current 4c/8t setups.
If that turns out to be true the 2700x needs a large price drop when these chips release!