Thanks for that. Just read it - good read.
Forget overclocking but use faster ram with tighter timings. Board (old / new) don't matter, That will please a good few 1000 series users.
-
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.
OcUK Ryzen 2000 series review thread
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Thanks for that. Just read it - good read.
Forget overclocking but use faster ram with tighter timings. Board (old / new) don't matter, That will please a good few 1000 series users.
Yeah if my system packed up I think I'd get an R5 2600X and some nice fast RAM and see what I can get out it with no overclocking. 8 cores would be great but in all honesty it might be better to wait until Zen 2 for that considering I don't use my PC for much intensive stuff these days.
Even the Ryzen 5 2600 might be enough. The Computerbase.de review puts the Ryzen 5 2600X as only 2% slower in games!
Activate parameter "Precision Boost Override" (bios setting) Anandtech he used this option , !!! Other reviewers they used ????
Look my video 4770MHz
Minute 1.17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsWYgyiDTaU&t=
Look my video 4770MHz
Minute 1.17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsWYgyiDTaU&t=
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,257
The activation of the bios setting, precision boost override, does what exactly in terms I can understand?
Is this to do with how many cores boost by how much under specific circumastances?
Is this to do with how many cores boost by how much under specific circumastances?
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_5_2600x_vs_intel_core_i5_8600k?page=0,45
Few tests with memory scaling 2666-3400
And few tests with smt on and off
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_5_2600x_vs_intel_core_i5_8600k?page=0,46
Both for 2600x.
Few tests with memory scaling 2666-3400
And few tests with smt on and off
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesorow_amd_ryzen_5_2600x_vs_intel_core_i5_8600k?page=0,46
Both for 2600x.
By standard 2700x has TDP limit of around 140W not 105W as it's advertised. Activation of PBO disables this limit so both boosts single and multi core can go higher if platform allows/ temps etc.
Very interesting, so with beefy cooling you can get even more performance from XFR2 and uncapped power ^^
After digesting the reviews I'm really psyched about 2019. We need to remember that GloFo's 12nm is still not on par with Intel's 14nm+++. Next year we'll see Intel's 10nm stacked up against GloFo's 7nm which so far are looking to be very competitive. AMD has gotten pretty close while still having a process node disadvantage, so next year we'll likely see similar clock speeds from both. The details will make the difference (e.g. how much cache size they can cram into the chip, heat management, etc) and of course, actual IPC.
Another thing that comes to mind is that while the jumps in frequency are getting smaller (e.g. we can hope for 4.x -> 5.0GHz next year, but not much more) the RAM speeds are getting faster at a higher rate. With Ryzen's behaviour, AMD should be very aggressive about DDR5 and try to implement it ASAP. I'm thinking Ryzen 3000 in 2019 will be AM4/DDR4 and Ryzen 4000 in 2020 should be DDR5/AM5.
Another thing that comes to mind is that while the jumps in frequency are getting smaller (e.g. we can hope for 4.x -> 5.0GHz next year, but not much more) the RAM speeds are getting faster at a higher rate. With Ryzen's behaviour, AMD should be very aggressive about DDR5 and try to implement it ASAP. I'm thinking Ryzen 3000 in 2019 will be AM4/DDR4 and Ryzen 4000 in 2020 should be DDR5/AM5.
Soldato
The 2600 makes the entire Intel i5 coffee lineup obsolete.
Other way around. It does 105W with PBO disabled.
As shown here: https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,review-34307-12.html
Enable PBO and the cpu will exceed 105W because the toggle is an overclock.
The motherboard manufacturers set the stock settings and if they have it on at default that's what happens.
You don't know if stilt had pbo enabled, just your speculation? Unless I missed something? Just because TH didn't get this high doesn't mean he is wrong. Look at the der8auer and x platform drama, nobody could replicate this for some time. Maybe TH used different prime version, stress settings etc
Plus PBO doesn't limit you by default to 140W
Yes he did.
Precision Boost Override is an an automatic overclock and when not enabled the cpu sticks to its TDP.
If the motherboard manufacturer sets it as enabled at default it's cheeky and they should be blamed for it. Obviously doing it so that when someone uses their board it magically gives better default performance than a different manufacturer.
But there we go, there is no drama. The motherboard being used has turned on automatic overclocking. So when Stilt is claiming it's on AMD that's not really right if it's the motherboard manufacturers decision.
Even in what you just quoted he states when PBO is off, cpu is limited to 141.75W and when it's on it's almost unlimited...so according to him 140W is possible to draw without PBO
He doesn't say PBO is off, he says default limiters and by default he's using PBO.
And these are the generic limits of PBO which the motherboard manufacturer customises to create the above default settings:
The logic of this is also found elsewhere: http://www.overclock.net/forum/225-...zen-2nd-gen-x470-reviews-14.html#post27208521
Where it is mentioned that such "default" settings for power are unrealistic for lower end boards to handle which would make no sense. Unless something special is enabled on this Asus board...
I've seen a gigabyte video where you have to enter the BIOS and agree to a disclaimer to enable PBO with clear wording that doing so runs the CPU out of spec: https://image.ibb.co/eketwx/tmp.png
So I'm happy to go with those being PBO settings and thats 100% of the reason Stilt has power draw so high while tomshardware disabled PBO and hit exactly the TDP.
Agreed, PBO shouldn't be on by default and it should be explicitly stated if used in benchmarks, it's just like MCE: an automatic overclock.
Caporegime
That's debatable i agree but the difference is MCE is a Motherboard vendors feature where as PBO is specifically a Ryzen CPU feature.
The argument is "its because PBO makes the CPU go over its TDP" its the only argument Gamers Nexus could come up with because its the only one that's valid.
This for me is an example where AMD's PR is not good enough because clever people will have foreseen that ^^^ and just wrote a higher TDP on the side of the box to accommodate PBO.
nVidia use the same technology is Pascal GPU's, i think AMD too, similar, the difference is you can't turn it off on GPU's./ so no one complains.
Yes it's specifically marketed as a feature, so it's fine to use. However...
Yes, and it is valid. The CPU has a defined TDP and PBO specifically ignores it. That's fine, but it's also an overclock because of that, and should be considered in the same category IMO. There's a reason it has a 105 W TDP and not a 150 W TDP. Standard "boost" behaviour is to allow small bursts of speed that then throttles back when TDP is violated.
Last edited:
Caporegime
My GPU has a 150 watt TDP, at its rated clock speed of about 1500Mhz that's probably right, however, without doing anything to it, just putting it in the computer and running it from its drivers it actually runs at 1900Mhz, and its not using 150 Watts, more like 200 Watts, it does this because the MSI cooler can handle it.
Every reviewer knows this, they have never said anything about it, but now that AMD are carrying that same technology forward to their CPU's its suddenly an issue.
BTW, i'm not entirely sure about coffeelake, but for-sure Skylake-X with its precision boost also goes over TDP, way over TDP, again, no one cares.
Predictably now that AMD are following industry trend the whole debate is "we shouldn't allow AMD to do this" well what if AMD like Intel and nVidia didn't give you the option to switch it off? its things like this where AMD should have foreseen this cynicism and i just want to shake them violently to make the wake up to it.