OcUK Ryzen 3000/Zen 2 review thread

Orange Nexus · 22 Jul 2019 at 15:09

nomadd said:
Sure, but this whole thread section started off when we were talking about a decent, cheap R3600 build. Cheap PC3200 ram and stock cooler is more than good enough for most folks, and gives very respectable gaming performance.

But obviously I can't speak for the multi-billionaires that inhabit the OCUK forums.

My bad. I thought this was OCUK.

opethdisciple · 22 Jul 2019 at 15:25

But 3600MHz C16 is better than 3200MHz C14 right?

Nghtmare · 22 Jul 2019 at 15:28

opethdisciple said:
But 3600MHz C16 is better than 3200MHz C14 right?

They are the same speed technically, but on 3600Mhz C16 you might see a small increase in FPS

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 22 Jul 2019 at 16:15

nomadd said:
When you can pick up PC3200 ram so cheap, I doubt the expensive ram would even show a 5% increase across a broad range of games. Probably more like 1-2% max. So yeah, pointless spend.

Ryzen 3000 also appears to not only have better compatibility with DDR4,but also seems to be less dependent on faster RAM than Ryzen 1000 and 2000 according to the testing DF did too!! Also,Micron E-die 3200MHZ DIMMs,can apparently overclock reasonably well,so if you have enough airflow,it should do the trick.

Orange Nexus · 22 Jul 2019 at 17:12

opethdisciple said:
But 3600MHz C16 is better than 3200MHz C14 right?

Like CAT said, there would be hardly any difference.

humbug · 23 Jul 2019 at 15:35

3700X and 8700K are tied, just a couple % in it going both ways between them..

~>Dg<~ · 23 Jul 2019 at 15:47

at stock yes when the 8700k is overclocked it is quite a bit faster. most 8700ks will do nearly 5ghz aswell. so big jump in performance.

opethdisciple · 23 Jul 2019 at 16:37

Look at those 1% and 0.1 % lows on the 8700k in Odyssey! :eek:

OK... so based on that video I can see that the 1% and 0.1% lows are much better on the 3700k compared to the 2700x. That to me warrants the purchase.

ICDP · 23 Jul 2019 at 17:05

~>Dg<~ said:
at stock yes when the 8700k is overclocked it is quite a bit faster. most 8700ks will do nearly 5ghz aswell. so big jump in performance.

In this case you have a point but for the sake of clarity it's not as you claim, quite a bit faster. It's marginally faster and only at 1080p on a high end GPU. At higher resolutions or with mid range GPUs it's even less.

~>Dg<~ · 23 Jul 2019 at 17:14

ocd its quite a bit faster. thats why they show stock benches with the intel cpus.in literally every benchmark. when you show ocd intel chips even old ones can be as fast or faster.

Hotwired · 23 Jul 2019 at 17:29

~>Dg<~ said:
ocd its quite a bit faster. thats why they show stock benches with the intel cpus.in literally every benchmark. when you show ocd intel chips even old ones can be as fast or faster.

I'm pretty sure its because OC values are worthless to the majority of buyers so they're not in graphs as standard.

As opposed to only showing stock Intel to make AMD (also stock) look better.

~>Dg<~ · 23 Jul 2019 at 17:32

you need to factor it in especially on a intel k chip. its free. it takes minutes on many of them. you should show stock and ocd. only showing stock is false. as if the amd cpu for eg is 1 fps quicker you can say its quucker. so many people buy it.when ocd the intel is quite a bit in front and only take 30 secs to be quicker.

ICDP · 23 Jul 2019 at 17:43

~>Dg<~ said:
ocd its quite a bit faster. thats why they show stock benches with the intel cpus.in literally every benchmark. when you show ocd intel chips even old ones can be as fast or faster.

It really isn't quite a bit faster even at 1080p as you seem to believe and when paired with a less than top of the range GPU it will be miniscule. The same applies if you game at 1440p or 4K.

If you twitch game at 1080p with a top of the range GPU, then yes get an Intel and OC to 5GHz for ~10% better FPS OC vs OC on average compared to a 3700X.

ICDP · 23 Jul 2019 at 17:45

~>Dg<~ said:
you need to factor it in especially on a intel k chip. its free. it takes minutes on many of them. you should show stock and ocd. only showing stock is false. as if the amd cpu for eg is 1 fps quicker you can say its quucker. so many people buy it.when ocd the intel is quite a bit in front and only take 30 secs to be quicker.

It's not free, you need a much beefier and expensive cooler to keep it cool with the extra power consumption. You keep digging that hole though.

humbug · 23 Jul 2019 at 17:47

Edit: That ^^^

If you want to overclock the 8700K for a 10% gain you'll need to throw in a £100 cooler making it a lot more expensive.

In fact just to get it running at the performance you see in that video you'll be spending £50 on a cooler.

TrM · 23 Jul 2019 at 17:47

~>Dg<~ said:
you need to factor it in especially on a intel k chip. its free. it takes minutes on many of them. you should show stock and ocd. only showing stock is false. as if the amd cpu for eg is 1 fps quicker you can say its quucker. so many people buy it.when ocd the intel is quite a bit in front and only take 30 secs to be quicker.

Many people don’t overclock even on systems they build there self I think you would be surprised how many people are put off by it or even don’t know how to do it. I’m sure a lot of people do on this forum and many other tech forums but I think that number is quite small compared to the amount of k series owners.

Then you have the other people who physical can’t overclock there cpus from dell hp and other companies who have locked bios on there mainstream platform Mobo. And every sales person for them up sell to the best cpu they can and that included selling a k chip on a locked Mobo for no real benefit (it crazy how bad sales people are when u order)

I don’t think overclocked result show a true picture of the user base and stock results are a lot more mainstream benchmarks as that’s what most use.

It’s the one thing I like out the box with Ryzen and why I recommend it to family and friends as you get most the performance out of the box . But myself personally I would love a Ryzen chip to oc well and I can spend hours fine tuning it

~>Dg<~ · 23 Jul 2019 at 17:52

pro amd people as always. the 8700k is faster overall. regardless of cooler at gaming. take all bios out of it. look at the figures. a 8700k is quicker at gaming.

humbug · 23 Jul 2019 at 17:57

~>Dg<~ said:
pro amd people as always. the 8700k is faster overall. regardless of cooler at gaming. take all bios out of it. look at the figures. a 8700k is quicker at gaming.

You're the one constantly running to Intel's defence, you've done it here yet again, all i did was post a video with 8700K and 3700X game performance parity, 'in a Ryzen 3000 review thread of all things' que you running in "But But But.....Free Overclock" it's not free, the 8700K doesn't come with a box cooler and because of the heat generated when overclocking them you need a beefy cooler pushing the price for that 'lets face it' small performance gain.

opethdisciple · 23 Jul 2019 at 17:58

~>Dg<~ said:
pro amd people as always. the 8700k is faster overall. regardless of cooler at gaming. take all bios out of it. look at the figures. a 8700k is quicker at gaming.

The video posted above though shows shocking 1% and 0.1% lows in Oddysey tho in comparison.

ICDP · 23 Jul 2019 at 18:07

~>Dg<~ said:
pro amd people as always. the 8700k is faster overall. regardless of cooler at gaming. take all bios out of it. look at the figures. a 8700k is quicker at gaming.

If you try to remain objective you will see how ridiculous your post above is. You claimed that an 8700K overclocked is "quite a bit faster" and I have provided evidence that shows this not to be the case. Yes the 8700K is faster with an OC, but not by "quite a bit" as you claim.