Digital Foundry, highly regarded on this forum, tested the 1800X at stock and 4.0GHz vs a stock 6900K and a stock 7700K, all with fast memory
-
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) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
and working out of the box with no issues? or is it a matter of getting a magic combination of parts
Associate
stranded on an island
as long as there is ales and bottles of gin and lots of lemon tree's growing on the other side then all would be good without a worry in the world about pc's & tech 
Soldato
stranded on an island
There might be issues out of the box, therefore don't get it now if you expect fully stable system for start (some ppl get this though). However You don't buy new platform for month or two but for couple of years I would think, so it's better to wait when situation stabilises than going into Intel ( unless you really need stable system right now or you play at high fps)
Unsually low :/ it took Asus around 6 months to get my x99 deluxe to allow me to run my ram at its 2400Mhz.
Things have changed a lot since the x99 launch with that now being so low compared to these monster 3200+Mhz.
Here is my approach.
The system currently runs at 3.6GHz max clock, I didn't even turn on XFR and the memory runs at 2133MHz.
But it already gets good benchmark results (way better than my FX 9590 with ~4.7GHz, single core is nearly twice as fast) and the system is very snappy.
It runs quite cool, but I noticed my FX 9590 was running idle at ~20-30C and the 1800X does not go below 35C.
Under stress the FX 9590 went up into the 70+C, the 1800X stays just at 50C.
Until I hit any barrier and need more horsepower, I may just keep it that way?
The system currently runs at 3.6GHz max clock, I didn't even turn on XFR and the memory runs at 2133MHz.
But it already gets good benchmark results (way better than my FX 9590 with ~4.7GHz, single core is nearly twice as fast) and the system is very snappy.
It runs quite cool, but I noticed my FX 9590 was running idle at ~20-30C and the 1800X does not go below 35C.
Under stress the FX 9590 went up into the 70+C, the 1800X stays just at 50C.
Until I hit any barrier and need more horsepower, I may just keep it that way?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Fact is, Intel support officially 2400Mhz, AMD support officially 2666Mhz. Mobo makers include higher support for AMD and Intel than the officially stated support, but ultimately 1Mhz beyond 2400Mhz for Intel and 2666Mhz for AMD is overclocking. So in fairness, if you buy a Dell system, you aren't going to find 3000Mhz memory are you, you'll get what is officially supported, 2400Mhz. For AMD you will get up to 2666Mhz.
For instance Alienware sell 4 computers, three come with 2400Mhz, one actually comes with 2666Mhz.
If you're testing stock against stock, that should include at most the maximum memory speed a company claims to support at stock, not what a motherboard adds as an overclocking option for one platform but not the other.
It's also rather clear that A, a lot of AMD motherboards will run 3000Mhz just fine, B, memory support is improving every week and C, new platforms will always take a while to get up to speed.
The only remotely fair way to test is to give both systems either their max supported, or even the same memory speed. Under normal situations, lets say a gtx 1080 using maxed out settings a 1080/1440p, then overclocking memory won't make much if any difference. If you're running lower IQ/res settings specifically to put the load on the CPU more heavily, then you are also going to run into memory limitations, removing them for one platform but not the other is absurd.
There were a quite silly amount of reviews that ran 2400-2666Mhz for Zen vs 3000-3200Mhz for Intel. If I was reviewing, I'd include pure stock tests, that means, max official memory speed, normal clocks, basically nothing at all changed. Then I'd run max comfortable overclock on both memory and cpu on both systems to get overclocked results. Showing overclocked memory for gaming on one system and calling it stock for Intel in one of the only scenarios that shows a difference in memory speed AND at settings people never actually use is so incredibly biased and misleading.
It's entirely fair to say, overclocked, Intel platform is far more mature and you might get 4000Mhz out of a super set of memory on Intel, but only 3200Mhz with the same set on AMD. It's entirely fair to use both those results comparing overclocked systems, that is what overclockers might find to be a real use case scenario and it's entirely valid. Though I'd also point out that it's extremely likely as with every new platform that over time AMD memory speeds will come up. But even for a site like Anandtech, 80+% of readers will still end up buying a OEM system and not overclocking and they won't get 3000Mhz memory with the system, they'll get a stock system with 2400Mhz memory.
Any site comparing stock to overclocked immediately loses credibility with me. I also hate it with GPUs, some site will benchmark a purely stock lets say RX480 against ONLY overclocked gtx 1060s and proclaim AMD dead. Those reviews should show stock 1060, stock 480 and the overclocked 1060 results. But leaving out the stock 1060 causes a much bigger gap and gives a very different impression to a reader.
Last edited:
No. You do your research, pay your money and make your choice.
Yep, don't fix it if it ain't broken. If you're happy with it then that's all that matters, unless you want bragging rights.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
All our college Ryzen machines have been working flawlessly and they've had some very heavy workloads on them in the last week.
It seems OC'ing is causing most of the issues (quelle suprise).
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 18,514
https://videocardz.com/67548/amd-ryzen-5-already-being-sold
hahaha
OCUK, fancy letting any slip through ?
hahaha
OCUK, fancy letting any slip through ?
Permabanned
+1,
That's what I'm waiting for, That said,
If I needed to buy a cpu today I'd still go with Ryzen.
On the ram speed thing I would like to say that the intel 6 and 8 core cpus have had IMC speed problems since launch in 2011. The facts are that AMD are officially supporting a faster speed than intel on day 1 of launch of a brand new 8 core cpu architecture. This is a huge accomplishment which should be applauded.
Also, raw MHz is not everything, a tightly timed 2666mhz kit can outrun a 3xxx MHz kit given the right timings.
Lastly I would also point out that I no longer use ASus motherboards of any type simply due to their fault rate and bugs. This is not limited to Ryzen. If you want a top board come back in q4 when no doubt we will have a Asrock OC formula to buy.
Also, raw MHz is not everything, a tightly timed 2666mhz kit can outrun a 3xxx MHz kit given the right timings.
Lastly I would also point out that I no longer use ASus motherboards of any type simply due to their fault rate and bugs. This is not limited to Ryzen. If you want a top board come back in q4 when no doubt we will have a Asrock OC formula to buy.
Permabanned
It was a bit of a mixed bag, especially at my native 3440x1440.
It looks promising though and I'm confident it'll be a hard option to beat when I eventually upgrade.
True but I thought Ryzen really loves high speed memory, and 3000 to 3200 mhz on mem can be quite a large perf boost in games
Soldato
Not on Ryzen, it's not the memory per say that gives the speed boost, it's the fact that the Infinity Fabric is tied to the memory speed in a 2:1 ratio. So the higher your memory speed the faster the CPU CCXs can talk to each other.
Cereal3, not directed at you but I am going to ramble.
For the Zen build I am about to do for my Dad, my go-to combination for RAM perf would be Asrock/G-Skill. One peek at the Asrock Fatality QVL tells me that the following kit has been verified by Asrock as working at 3200mhz on that specific board.
DDR4 3200 8GB G.Skill F4-3200CL14D-16GBTZ
Are we saying that this combo has been tested and it don't work ? I ask this question because if I am looking specifically for RAM performance from Ryzen this combo is my first google. If i now go and buy something else outside of this combo I would have doubts that its going to work at 3200 and prepare myself for disappoint. And this is because, as an enthusiast, I did not do my homework properly. As an enthusiast, I know where to look for my RAM performance and compatibility and its not AMD's fault that I failed and bought something else.
I also know that if i buy this combo and it does not work, people from AMD, ASRock and G-Skill are currently working hard in the background to make it work via future firmware updates and I will simply run at a slower speed until then.
I would also add that my 'volted and clocked to the balls' 6700k setup can only do 3600 so even if I can only do 3000 mhz I would say 'job done' to AMD/Asrock/G-skill.
Soldato
That is true and most of us believe it is to do with the boost to Infinity Fabric rather than purely the RAM itself. Although not confirmed there is pretty strong evidence to correlate to this train of thought at this time.
So with that the tighter timings are not doing as much for Ryzen from current perception as getting the RAM to run faster yields the more important results outside of specific synthetic benches.
With that stated what would be interesting is then to loosen timings to see how things are affected if at all in programs, benchmarks and games. This would clarify if timings are making much affect once RAM is at 3200MHz