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

[opethdisciple]

I cant imagine from a pure gaming perspective there would be much benefit getting the 1800X over the 1700X?

Time will tell...

 

[FredFlint]

I cant imagine from a pure gaming perspective there would be much benefit getting the 1800X over the 1700X?

Time will tell...

It’s like all hardware, the longer you keep it, the more getting the higher option pays off. The X1800 will also sell for more when/if you sell it.

 

[xs2man]

Not sure I understand spending that much on a motherboard when Gibbo has previously mentioned the Crosshair being the best for OC-ing (albeit on the 1700).

 

[five8five]

I cant imagine from a pure gaming perspective there would be much benefit getting the 1800X over the 1700X?

Time will tell...

I was reading that the smart move was to wait for the R5 6c/12t CPU if you're a gamer. Cheaper, probably better performance due to lower heat from fewer cores whereas the 8c is better for video encoding etc which would utilise all the cores whereas most games don't use them all.

The problem is that it won't be released until April and I don't think there will be any reviews on the 2nd March. AMD have made sure they are getting the biggest return as quickly as possible by the way they are releasing them.

 

[Beren]

I was reading that the smart move was to wait for the R5 6c/12t CPU if you're a gamer. Cheaper, probably better performance due to lower heat from fewer cores whereas the 8c is better for video encoding etc which would utilise all the cores whereas most games don't use them all.

The problem is that it won't be released until April and I don't think there will be any reviews on the 2nd March. AMD have made sure they are getting the biggest return as quickly as possible by the way they are releasing them.

We basically know nothing until reviews come out that are really pushing chip customization and overclocking. We need to know if you can turn off alternating cores to make a 4c 8t chip that still have access to the full 20mb cache - then what that does to the thermal performance and whether doing that means you can push the Ghz much higher.

We already know that the 1700 will hit 4ghz using all cores we don't know what that looks like on a good raft of gaming benchmarks. If the 1800X can hit 4.2 stable on 8 cores and maybe 4.5 when you turn 4 cores off then it is going to be very close on lower threaded games. Really looking forward to both good reviews and some of the guys on here that really know their stuff when it comes to overclocking reporting how they get on.

 

[thesmokingman]

We basically know nothing until reviews come out that are really pushing chip customization and overclocking. We need to know if you can turn off alternating cores to make a 4c 8t chip that still have access to the full 20mb cache - then what that does to the thermal performance and whether doing that means you can push the Ghz much higher.

We already know that the 1700 will hit 4ghz using all cores we don't know what that looks like on a good raft of gaming benchmarks. If the 1800X can hit 4.2 stable on 8 cores and maybe 4.5 when you turn 4 cores off then it is going to be very close on lower threaded games. Really looking forward to both good reviews and some of the guys on here that really know their stuff when it comes to overclocking reporting how they get on.

This should help. You don't have to turn off cores, when you can control overclocks per core.

 

[daman2k]

Is that the new version of overdrive?

 

[thesmokingman]

Is that the new version of overdrive?

It certainly looks like it. I do wonder how much of the diagnostics the user will get to see considering there over a hundred sensors packed in it.

 

[daman2k]

Interesting, looks pretty decent.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Per core voltage is also possible. although I'm not currently sure if Overdrive supports this

 

[silversurfer]

Er, sadly I think you misunderstand what IPC means...

Did think I'd missed something then. 1800 and 1700 are just clockspeed. If 1800 had a better IPC then yea thats big but its a duplicate in that way, isnt every chip here. Just minor differences and clockspeed, binning or quality perhaps

I cant imagine from a pure gaming perspective there would be much benefit getting the 1800X over the 1700X?

Time will tell...

Games mostly lean on clockspeed not cores. However AMD chose Battlefield 1 for good reason as it soaks up all those multiple cores like almost no other game does. If the 1800x is faster, its justifiable. I wouldnt get anything less then 8 cores but thats my personal take, that we'll be using more cores in future

 

[Silent_Scone]

Did think I'd missed something then. 1800 and 1700 are just clockspeed. If 1800 had a better IPC then yea thats big but its a duplicate in that way, isnt every chip here. Just minor differences and clockspeed, binning or quality perhaps


Games mostly lean on clockspeed not cores. However AMD chose Battlefield 1 for good reason as it soaks up all those multiple cores like almost no other game does. If the 1800x is faster, its justifiable. I wouldnt get anything less then 8 cores but thats my personal take, that we'll be using more cores in future

Have played BF1 quite a bit on a 6950x, 6900k and 6850k. I didn't notice a single difference between any of them at 2560x1080 or 1440p. All overclocked.

There's nothing tangible there to warrant more cores on the Intel side. You want to be looking at minimums on the AMD CPUs.

 

[Drollic]

We already know that the 1700 will hit 4ghz using all cores we don't know what that looks like on a good raft of gaming benchmarks. If the 1800X can hit 4.2 stable on 8 cores and maybe 4.5 when you turn 4 cores off then it is going to be very close on lower threaded games. Really looking forward to both good reviews and some of the guys on here that really know their stuff when it comes to overclocking reporting how they get on.

Re the 1700 @ 4 - On a top end motherboard with a 240mm aio otherwise the vrms were cooking which would suggest high voltage and temps and the best of what to expect from the sounds of it? I personally couldn't buy one and have it at 3.9, that number is just plain annoying just like 4.1

 

[SiDeards73]

Have played BF1 quite a bit on a 6950x, 6900k and 6850k. I didn't notice a single difference between any of them at 2560x1080 or 1440p. All overclocked.

There's nothing tangible there to warrant more cores on the Intel side. You want to be looking at minimums on the AMD CPUs.

The point was, the difference between an 8/16 or 6/12 and an 4/8 or just 4/4... look at the Computerbase.de article, all the stuff thats either 6/12 or 8/16 perform ahead of a 4/4 or 4/8 in BF1 and other titles with similar multithreaded performance.. Of course your not going to see huge variations between those models, but between those and a 4/4 or 4/8 you will.

Also at the resolutions you quote your leaning on the GPU more than the CPU i would imagine? The point is, more cores matter in some games, there is evidence that already shows this.

 

[labbby]

Have played BF1 quite a bit on a 6950x, 6900k and 6850k. I didn't notice a single difference between any of them at 2560x1080 or 1440p. All overclocked.

There's nothing tangible there to warrant more cores on the Intel side. You want to be looking at minimums on the AMD CPUs.

i play BF1 at 4k I have played it on a rig with 4cores and 6cores. I didn't notice any FPS increase but what i did notice, in a big way, was the draw times of objects was pretty bad on the 4core. I was getting so many pop in detail but with the 6core i hardly noticed got any.

 

[Odd Job]

This should help. You don't have to turn off cores, when you can control overclocks per core.

I have just been reading the manual for the gigabyte GA-AB350M and the is an option in the bios called Downcore Control.

Downcore Control (Note)
Allows you to select the number of CPU cores to enable (the number of CPU cores may vary by CPU).
Auto lets the BIOS automatically configure this setting. (Default: Auto)

(Note) This item is present only when you install a CPU that supports this feature.

 

[Silent_Scone]

The point was, the difference between an 8/16 or 6/12 and an 4/8 or just 4/4... look at the Computerbase.de article, all the stuff thats either 6/12 or 8/16 perform ahead of a 4/4 or 4/8 in BF1 and other titles with similar multithreaded performance.. Of course your not going to see huge variations between those models, but between those and a 4/4 or 4/8 you will.

Also at the resolutions you quote your leaning on the GPU more than the CPU i would imagine? The point is, more cores matter in some games, there is evidence that already shows this.

No, 2560x1080 when paired with the right GPU can be CPU limited.

 

[SiDeards73]

I have just been reading the manual for the gigabyte GA-AB350M and the is an option in the bios called Downcore Control.

Downcore Control (Note)
Allows you to select the number of CPU cores to enable (the number of CPU cores may vary by CPU).
Auto lets the BIOS automatically configure this setting. (Default: Auto)

(Note) This item is present only when you install a CPU that supports this feature.

Im wondering if there is a scenario where you can customise active core count and clocks applied per game being run? like if im playing WoW and its more cpu heavy i can shut off a couple of cores and boost the rest, or if im playing a multithreaded game i can just leave it at max cores, but all automatic from within windows.

 

[Odd Job]

Im wondering if there is a scenario where you can customise active core count and clocks applied per game being run? like if im playing WoW and its more cpu heavy i can shut off a couple of cores and boost the rest, or if im playing a multithreaded game i can just leave it at max cores, but all automatic from within windows.

The question is, do all of the R7 support this?

and then you get this picture :


makes you wonder who the leak is ...

And may explain why this R7 is showing as a 6c12t.

 

[TNA]

More like someone from WCCFTECH is tasked with reading OCUK and feeding 'news'.

90% of their articles are 'our sources say that X' where sources are some post by some guy in some forum.

Exactly. Yet people here still love to use that site and keep quoting them. Lol