Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,095
- Location
- London
It's crazy to think that Ryzen is already one year old.
-
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.
Ryzen "2" ?
- Thread starter beany_bot
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,095
- Location
- London
Yea, Ryzen 3. Will it utilise the same socket, or is that an unknown right now?
I think I'm just looking for excuses to buy here.
This is why this is confusing.
The 1000 series is Ryzen
2000 Ryzen +
3000 will be Ryzen 2
No preorder for me until then :/
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
I don't know if you've seen this but if not here's a review using the 2700x on a 470 board
https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2018/04/review-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-x470/#juegos
No.
1000 series is Ryzen 1 (based on the Zen architecture)
2000 series is Ryzen 2 (based on the Zen+ architecture)
3000 series is Ryzen 3 (based on the Zen 2 architecture)
Just like how Core iX-2xxx is "second generation" (based on the Sandy Bridge architecture) and Core iX-3xxx is "third generation" (based on the Ivy Bridge architecture), then Core iX-4xxx is "fourth generation" (based on the Haswell architecture, a more significant change).
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
That vcore though...
AMD stated with the first Ryzen series that the Vcore is okay up to 1.5v although recommend no higher than 1.45v for 24/7 use. So it is alright to a point.
Different processes will have different sweet spots and thresholds you should stay below/etc.
Is that what is to be expected from this release...?
I am meaning the 4.19Ghz stable overclock at 1.456v.
I understand there is little to read right now but for those who have kept up with what there is does the above review tally with your expectations....?
I have kept up with very little of this development and I'm a little curious now that its getting closer to launch.
Perhaps due to my ignorance I would have expected a little more speed and for less volts, shows what I know.
Last edited:
There is more to cpu performance than just raw clock speed. While i would personally enjoy seeing ryzen go above 4,5 i would rather have them working on latency and other bottlenecks in the chip. You can have a lower clocked chip than the competitor and still be faster if your architecture is efficient enough.
TL;DR: Don't get tunnel vision on clock speed but instead look at the performance results.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
Those results sure are encouraging! Be nice to see some reviews on Thurs
They are and they aren't imo, It's good to see it gaming okay but it's not gaming great & still get's left behind by an 8700k. They are using the 8700k at stock which is why the 6700k often wins out, We know the 8700k clocks fairly well while this review gives the impression that the 2700x doesn't
Toasty
I think it's a case of they've got all they can out of it & it's unlikely we'll get much more through overclocking it ourselves,
I don't know what's to blame but it was the same with the Ryzen 1 series, there isn't any real silicon lottery like there is with Intel's cpu's,
On release when they were raving about their new auto overclocking software XFR all it did was offer a 0.1 clock increase which was laughable.
Then when you look at what manual overclocks people were getting we all hit roughly the same ceiling.
I hope it's different this time around but I wouldn't bet on it if I was a betting man.
That's a given but I think the results here show that for gaming it won't be competing with the 8700k.
We'll all know soon enough.
There definitely was a silicon lottery with Ryzen 1. I got a particularly bad chip. It wouldn't clock any higher than 3.7 and I had to reset my system up to 30 times every morning to get it to boot because of the weak memory controller. In fact, that's the main reason I'm upgrading to the 2700X. So i don't have to spend 15 minutes trying to get my system to boot every morning.
^ Unfortunately my experience with the Ryzen 1 lottery was the same as Loque's. I had two examples of the 1700X that could just about do 3.7GHz, but only if the RAM was at run at 2666. Running the RAM at 3000 (3200 was unreachable) either required the CPU to be at stock or to use absolutely insane voltages, and yes the memory was B-die. Eventually I had to run the whole lot at stock as even though every stability test would pass, games would constantly crash and booting was a lottery with any form of overclock applied.
I'd imagine many of these kinds of issues will have been ironed out with Ryzen 2, particularly with the IMC.
I'd imagine many of these kinds of issues will have been ironed out with Ryzen 2, particularly with the IMC.