Apparently the InSpectre tool can disable it in Windows.
-
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
Apparently the InSpectre tool can disable it in Windows.
I'm prepared to wait and find out .
Guru3D missed to bench the Ryzens on the very modern and actual gaming resolution of 480p. They somehow included 720p, 1080p and 1440p lol
And the CPU-Z test gains are impressive - north of 36% performance uplift Ryzen 7 2700X 4.4GHz vs Ryzen 7 1800X.
And the CPU-Z test gains are impressive - north of 36% performance uplift Ryzen 7 2700X 4.4GHz vs Ryzen 7 1800X.
Soldato
If you're going off popularity, sites should bench pubg, fortnite, cs, dota2/lol, overwatch then maybe a few more titles of various genre such as TW3, PC2 etc. It's not really an issue though with so many review available.
4.4 will be the 5.1/5.2 of 8700k no doubt, won't happen for a lot of people and the ones it does will be running 1.425-1.5v.
4.4 will be the 5.1/5.2 of 8700k no doubt, won't happen for a lot of people and the ones it does will be running 1.425-1.5v.
it can but my testing on my laptop didnt show a performance gain.
The 8 sec lag I had loading task manager stayed when I disabled meltdown mitigation (but kept patch installed). It then vanished when I uninstalled the patch.
However I havent tested if just disabling improves my desktop FF15 stutters.
Soldato
Also, can you oc Ryzen in BIOS on x470 according to core loading or is it all core set to a certain frequency in which case, if you clock all core to 42, you're actually hampering the chip slightly under single core use? If this can't be done in BIOS, can it in Ryzen master?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,840
That would be all well and good, but now we know their performance was built on unsound foundations (Spectre and Meltdown). The total fallout is still to be seen.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,840
Do you have a link for that please? Did a quick google but not conclusive. Thanks
Yeah,a lot of them have been covered in the reviews in the OP. Just seen this one,which did some Apples to Apples testing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr2B0RJd7Nc
Not seen any PUBG or Fornite testing yet though.
This whole Spectre/Meltdown saga has been all rather an annoying affair.
https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htmDo you have a link for that please? Did a quick google but not conclusive. Thanks
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,840
Thanks @CAT-THE-FIFTH Was 99% it was that but wanted to confirm
The OP has been updated with some more video reviews.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,840
I really love the lower CPU utilisation on Ryzen during this vid, shows just how much more headroom it has for longevity
Soldato
I really love the lower CPU utilisation on Ryzen during this vid, shows just how much more headroom it has for longevity
On the other hand, that cpu you just paid for is sat idle.
Science studio guy on YT had both.
I really love the lower CPU utilisation on Ryzen during this vid, shows just how much more headroom it has for longevity
Well I am more interested by the FO4 results,ie,the run they make around Swan's Pond which is in one of the more built up areas of the map. The Sweclockers test is in Diamond City which is more a hub area,but this is more in a dense part of the map. The same channel tested the Ryzen 7 1800X and it was definitely much slower. OTH,even with the Core i7 8700K at 4.4GHZ and the Ryzen 7 2700X at 4.2GHZ,the AMD CPU is quite close. Since the game does not use more than six threads,the Ryzen 5 2600/2600X should be close. I am going to wait and see when the channel compares the Ryzen 5 2600/2600X with the Core i5 8400,and when some more reviews with the game appears to see if the performance improvements hold true(or not).
Thanks for that - I will add it to the OP.
Compared to what.
Compared to all cores at base frequency like the old days the all core max overclock looks good.
But what you see is people pitting simple all core overclock against AMDs adaptive clock system which itself tries to reach maximum clock speeds but in a more flexible way.
That doesn't look as productive because XFR can reach higher frequencies than an all core OC.
So we get these funny results where all core overclocking can mean nothing or be worse because XFR was already doing a better job.
@~>Dg<~ might be shock to the system but not everyone like mp only games, are are some who couldn’t give two hoots about them. So all these bf, cod, pubg, fortnite etc are irrelevant to them, some of them do care about tomb raider etc. Maybe not ashes of the benchmark, but that’s not the point.
Caporegime
I really love the lower CPU utilisation on Ryzen during this vid, shows just how much more headroom it has for longevity
Thats really impressive, other than 10 FPS in Arma III there is nothing between the 8700K and the Ryzen 2700X.
humbug do you agree the 2600x is a better buy vs 2700x for gaming? Media has its usual frenzy on the highest priced chips but for value for money the 2600x easily has the 2700x beat I reckon.
Also sorry dude, what is that video doing running a 8700k at 4.4ghz? A ryzen clocked up to its limit vs a 8700k nowhere near its limit
Also sorry dude, what is that video doing running a 8700k at 4.4ghz? A ryzen clocked up to its limit vs a 8700k nowhere near its limit