• 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" ?

opethdisciple said:
I just want to run it at stock presently. So you don't think that will be an issue on an x370 board?

A 4.2GHz overclock at some point would be nice too.

I also want my ram 8 Pack ram to run at DOCP.
Click to expand...

Ive got an R5 1600, Gigabyte B350 gaming 3 and Team group vulcan T-force 3000mhz, All at stock and rock solid, F22 bios and memorys running at 2993mhz on xmp. As others have said you might just have a duff 1700.
 
The R5 2600 looks quite poor compared to the 4790K in this comparison. It's probably worth taking the results with a pinch of salt though because it's not a mainstream YouTube channel:


EDIT: 2700X vs 4790K

 
opethdisciple said:
Are you implying that an 2700x in an x370 board will only boost to xfr1 speeds? And not to the 4.35GHz on one core that XFR2 is capable of?
Click to expand...

Hadn't even considered what occurs on an X370 board. I'd think it will apply the XFR1 logic.

Was just stating it would be nice if there was a bit of a wilder swing the logic could create.

I was meaning "XFR2 seems to do 4.1 all cores, the extra 200 hardly seems worth overclocking for" with my previous post, sorry for confusion.
 
haszek said:
If you setup Performance Enhancement (something like MCE), this removes TDP limits and XFR2 can even auto overclock above 4.3 on single core and above 4.1 on all cores.
Click to expand...

Useful tip! Haven't looked into much yet but I've got a good water setup on top of a VERY good air setup so the rads are pretty much breathing ambient/delta+5c_max air. Shortly going to 480mm (though shared with a 980ti).
I'll start looking at that.

Sosuke. said:
So how does the single core boast work? I thought it was just for single thread. But say I'm running bf1 is that classed as lightly threaded? And what does lightly threaded mean? That one core is stacked and just little bits off loaded to the rest?

Just trying to work out if I need to over clock or not
Click to expand...

Under XFR1 (X370 etc) it would apply a higher speed to a pair of cores on the fly, if a 3rd was needed, would then IMMEDIATELY drop all cores to sub 4ghz.

Under XFR2 (X470 etc) it will try and work inside a (I think) user set voltage/thermal envelope, if cores are loaded, it'll try and boost them but keep the level of the other cores sensible to make best use of the envelope provided.

That was my take on it in laymans.

So... allowing it to push the small number of cores hard when needed rather than them all being stuck at 4.2/3 all cores may well be beneficial (even more so than overclocking).
 
Last edited:
thewanted said:
The R5 2600 looks quite poor compared to the 4790K in this comparison. It's probably worth taking the results with a pinch of salt though because it's not a mainstream YouTube channel:

<snip>

EDIT: 2700X vs 4790K

<snip
Click to expand...

Nah, if you look it's at 1080p. Most of the other reviews say about the same, Ryzen is behind by a trifling amount at 1080p.
 
reviewers have not activated some features in the bios
These functions are Off by default
Or they have bios without these functions
Look at the FPS difference
Config 2700x default
ddr4 3466 cl14
cpu default, gpu default, Fhd, option filter video Bf1 Ultra
before and after activating these functions , before 146 , after 181fps

 
Mercutio said:
Useful tip! Haven't looked into much yet but I've got a good water setup on top of a VERY good air setup so the rads are pretty much breathing ambient/delta+5c_max air. Shortly going to 480mm (though shared with a 980ti).
I'll start looking at that.



Under XFR1 (X370 etc) it would apply a higher speed to a pair of cores on the fly, if a 3rd was needed, would then IMMEDIATELY drop all cores to sub 4ghz.

Under XFR2 (X470 etc) it will try and work inside a (I think) user set voltage/thermal envelope, if cores are loaded, it'll try and boost them but keep the level of the other cores sensible to make best use of the envelope provided.

That was my take on it in laymans.

So... allowing it to push the small number of cores hard when needed rather than them all being stuck at 4.2/3 all cores may well be beneficial (even more so than overclocking).
Click to expand...
Wow thanks! That makes sense
 
thewanted said:
The R5 2600 looks quite poor compared to the 4790K in this comparison. It's probably worth taking the results with a pinch of salt though because it's not a mainstream YouTube channel:


EDIT: 2700X vs 4790K

Click to expand...

Hitman:
2700X 115
4790K 115

Total War War Hammer
2700X 130
4790K 130

Ryse of the Tomb Raider
2700X 126
4790K 127

Farcry Primal
2700X 103
4790K 93

Does anyone else get the impression that other than in Farcry Primal he's bottle necked by his GTX 1080?
 
Mercutio said:
Hadn't even considered what occurs on an X370 board. I'd think it will apply the XFR1 logic.

Was just stating it would be nice if there was a bit of a wilder swing the logic could create.

I was meaning "XFR2 seems to do 4.1 all cores, the extra 200 hardly seems worth overclocking for" with my previous post, sorry for confusion.
Click to expand...

Oh!

That's even better. Under the right conditions all core will boost more than 3.7GHz?
 
LOLN1 said:
reviewers have not activated some features in the bios
These functions are Off by default
Or they have bios without these functions
Look at the FPS difference
Config 2700x default
ddr4 3466 cl14
cpu default, gpu default, Fhd, option filter video Bf1 Ultra
before and after activating these functions , before 146 , after 181fps
Click to expand...

That is quite a difference :D
 
Hotwired said:
Watched the GN review then watched Linus's review and really, if views reflected content they'd be switched.

Linus's entire theme was whining that it was a small improvement and not ryzen 2.

GN review was quite substantial and I liked it.
Click to expand...

The one point they pretty much all agreed on was that if you're on the Ryzen 1 series there's not much of a reason to upgrade which completely invalidates the backwards compatibility advantage for most people, especially those with 8 core Ryzens already.

That said most of us here aren't those people. :D
 
Yet again it depends on which reviewer you go to, some reviewers like Linus got practically nothing in terms of uplift Ryzen 1 vs Ryzen 2, others like TPU did have an up lift from old to new but all their game benchmarks Ryzen looks really bad and Ryzen 1 just much worse, far worse than it looked when first launch, even by their own Ryzen 1 reviews standards, which is strange.

Others say there is 10%+ between Ryzen 1 and Ryzen 2 and is only a couple to 10% behind the 8700K

Again its a case of: so who do i believe?
 
humbug said:
Yet again it depends on which reviewer you go to, some reviewers like Linus got practically nothing in terms of uplift Ryzen 1 vs Ryzen 2, others like TPU did have an up lift from old to new but all their game benchmarks Ryzen looks really bad and Ryzen 1 just much worse, far worse than it looked when first launch, even by their own Ryzen 1 reviews standards, which is strange.

Others say there is 10%+ between Ryzen 1 and Ryzen 2 and is only a couple to 10% behind the 8700K

Again its a case of: so who do i believe?
Click to expand...

Wait for the OCUK forum community to get their hands on them.
 
LumpyVR said:
HHmmmmmm, was considering upgrading my 1600 to a 2600/2600X. Not sure if I'd see the benefit really, mostly 1980x1200 60fps gaming (1600 hits this no problem) but with a bit of VR thrown in which an upgrade may help a bit although that'll be mostly GPU limited. Not a lot of productivity apart from some photo processing. I may wait a while for a price drop or even next 7nm chip???
Click to expand...

I'm also on a 1600x so too make the upgrade worthwhile I checked that a new bio's update was available for my board & went with the 2700x, A slight clock improvement for gaming along with an extra 2 cores & 4 threads for multi-tasking isn't bad, Plus the 2700x isn't badly priced when you consider what the first Ryzen 8 cores cost on release, I'm sure I'll be able to get around £100 back from my 1600x on the MM so it hasn't cost an arm an a leg and as someone who would insist on having the Spectre & meltdown patches installed if I had gone with Coffeelake I think I went with the better option.
 
What could this be ??


20180420_133306.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom