Ryzen "2" ?

[chrcoluk]

This was from Techradar:
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7WCtXMZPBaFWBmd4zPuGCG-650-80.jpg
Cinebench R15 single core - 2700x beats 8700k. This makes me wonder how many reviewers were actually testing with the Spectre patch for intel?

Then there is this different Cinebench score from Anandtech:
https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph12625/97212.png

Having seen 3 videos now where they think its ok to bench the 8600k/8700k at stock clocks, I think thats what some have been doing.

Its clear AMD maxed out the stock config as much as they could and the review guide possibly had a request to test against the competition in stock clocks.

AMD have every right to do whatever business strategy they want, but I expect reviewers to show a bit more free thinking and not just follow orders.

Intel perhaps should be willing to set the bar higher on its "official performance" levels, set a higher supported clock and just accept the lower yields.

The media used to reward you for having high overclockability but now things seem to have changed.

 

[chrcoluk]

Dunno in all honest Opeth, i went for the CH6 as it was the perceived to be the absolute best board, then 8Pack said the Taichi was close, so i bought one of those also, the CH6 was the winner for me as Elmor @ Asus kept the bios work flowing and it got regular updates etc.

I dont tend to ever skimp on motherboards, PSU, etc hence i have a 1000w Superflower Platinum PSU, and with Motherboards the CH6 and Taichi were the clear winners, however my brother runs the B350 Tomahawk and has never had an issue with it and his 1700.

In all honesty if i was to buy a 2700X theres a good chance i would buy a new motherboard, i would probably look towards Taichi, i wouldnt ever consider MSI, ever, period, they are a garbage company. I had a Gigabyte for my 4770k but given their antics with GPP i would probably not buy any of their products either, so im pretty much left with Asus and Asrock lol, ive had good experiences with my CH6 but i like the aesthetics of the Taichi, my only worry with Asrock is bios support is nowhere near as good as Asus.

To get the most out of these new Ryzens, especially the 2700X i think it would be best to just buy a highend motherboard as they are all designed with the power phases etc to push the chips correctly. Either that or pick up a CH6 to run with the 2700X, personally as i said, id buy an Asrock Taichi and hope they get ontop of bios updates, as the actual hardware design is second to none, they use some of if not the best components when building the Taichi boards, VRMs etc are all solid etc.

if it eases your mind in recent years asrock have a much better support record than asus on bios.

They released spectre bios updates further back than asus and much quicker, they also released the z370 LLC fix weeks quicker than asus did for its customers, and on low end board boards asus never released an LLC fix at all stating the hardware isnt capable of a fix as the reason.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Having seen 3 videos now where they think its ok to bench the 8600k/8700k at stock clocks, I think thats what some have been doing.

It's perfectly ok to have comparison parts at stock clocks in reviews. That is after all how most processors are run (even cpus with high oc potential such as 8600k/8700k)

 

[sideways14a]

Remember overclocking isnt free.
A 8700k will sky rocket in power use and heat when you push it to 5ghz or more, a 2700x also increases in power usage for what appears to be sod all benefit of overclocking as XFR seems to have a handle on this.

Also almost no one overclocks, they just dont.

 

[nashathedog]

A cheapo ASUS xD

ASUS PRIME B350M-A

Same board as mine so I'll be interested to see how you get on, Did you install the new bio's?

https://www.asus.com/uk/Motherboards/PRIME-B350M-A-CSM/HelpDesk_Download/

 

[Vakas]

How come we didn't get a 2800x this time round?

will we be getting one do you know

 

[B1gbeard]

Remember overclocking isnt free.
A 8700k will sky rocket in power use and heat when you push it to 5ghz or more, a 2700x also increases in power usage for what appears to be sod all benefit of overclocking as XFR seems to have a handle on this.

Also almost no one overclocks, they just dont.

Looking around lots of retailers selling gaming PC’s have them overclocked or have overclocked versions on both sides. It’s still a relevant point.

 

[4K8KW10]

What a lil beast this chip is.

Yes, it is: https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review-benchmarks

This makes Dave a happy panda. The Ryzen 7 2700X is a genuinely excellent high-end processor. I’m not just talking about it being a good value alternative, that it’s a decent CPU limited to productivity tasks, this is a great all-round processing monster of a chip.

This is a processor that makes me question why anyone would now buy the 8700K instead. The Intel chip is more expensive, slower in computational tasks, and doesn’t offer any frame rate boost for you games. So why bother?

The Ryzen 7 2700X also has a more compelling overall package. The AM4 platform is going to last for at least the next two year, giving you somewhere to go if you decide to upgrade later on down the line, and the chip itself also comes with a quality CPU cooler out of the box too.

Remember overclocking isnt free.
A 8700k will sky rocket in power use and heat when you push it to 5ghz or more, a 2700x also increases in power usage for what appears to be sod all benefit of overclocking as XFR seems to have a handle on this.

Also almost no one overclocks, they just dont.

Some processors need to be overclocked. For example, I remember that a Core 2 Quad Q at 2.66GHz when pushed to 3.2-3.4-3.6GHz and more turned into a different kind of beast.
It is just that at default clocks, some CPUs are simply too limited in their performance.

The Ryzen 7 2700X doesn't need to be overclocked.

 

[chrcoluk]

Shouldn't need to, we should be able to trust reviews but with such a vast variation between reviewers that is impossible.

watch this video and you'd think yeah the 8700K is ahead but the 2700X is not far behind holding up well against it.

Then go to https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/ and you can't help but notice in just about every slide they made Ryzen is Bulldozer levels behind the i3.

They can't both be right so which one are the shills?

It's perfectly ok to have comparison parts at stock clocks in reviews. That is after all how most processors are run (even cpus with high oc potential such as 8600k/8700k)

So if we did a poll on here for owners of K series chips (as well as other PC tech sites) you really think the majority will have no user overclock applied?

Sorry I disagree.

Its ok to have a stock chip in the graph, but the overclocked chip should be there as well, its even been tested, but simply deliberately omitted from graphs.

AMD reviews have history of this, remember the vega release where the 1080ti was mysteriously not on most reviewers graphs, then it was revealed AMD in their review guide asked for that card to not be there.

When intel release their next chips and these same reviewers run reviews, we will see overclocked data on the graphs because then these reviewers are working for intel instead of AMD, they like acting marketing staff for the companies they reviewing for.

 

[prjwebb]

So if we did a poll on here for owners of K series chips (as well as other PC tech sites) you really think the majority will have no user overclock applied?

Sorry I disagree.

Its ok to have a stock chip in the graph, but the overclocked chip should be there as well, its even been tested, but simply deliberately omitted from graphs.

AMD reviews have history of this, remember the vega release where the 1080ti was mysteriously not on most reviewers graphs, then it was revealed AMD in their review guide asked for that card to not be there.

When intel release their next chips and these same reviewers run reviews, we will see overclocked data on the graphs because then these reviewers are working for intel instead of AMD, they like acting marketing staff for the companies they reviewing for.

Look at the name of the website here. I don't think it represents the majority of desktop users.

 

[chrcoluk]

Looking around lots of retailers selling gaming PC’s have them overclocked or have overclocked versions on both sides. It’s still a relevant point.

of course, also a ryzen 2 at 4.2 ghz uses close to 300 watts, efficiency goes out the window above 4ghz.

That video with the ryzen 2 at 4.2 all cores vs intel 4.4 all 4 cores was probably nowhere near equal power draw. One chip was been pushed harder than the other.

I do praise AMD for pushing their hips harder out the box, whilst intel are clearly leaving massive headroom, but I think intel have left that headroom knowing that previously hardware that overclocks well gets rave reviews, they may rethink now and we may start seeing stock clocks close to 5ghz.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

So if we did a poll on here for owners of K series chips (as well as other PC tech sites) you really think the majority will have no user overclock applied?

We're a minority here, a niche market. We are in no way representative of the volume market AMD and Intel so desperately crave.

A friend and I ran through the stats this morning and estimated that less than 5% or 8600k and 8700k processors out their are overclocked. Heck, even the HP Omen "high end"machines are stock settings! Do you think the mass market reviewers will want to cater to the 95% or 5%?

If you're an overclocker, go find a review of an 8700k - that will will have OC results in it. It's entirely normal for a CPU review to only have OC results for the cpu being reviewed and stock settings for the comparison hardware.

 

[chrcoluk]

Look at the name of the website here. I don't think it represents the majority of desktop users.

The majority of desktop users dont watch these reviews either.

The typical consumer of that content who actually does buy K series chips for gaming hardware will overclock K series chips.

Just to be clear.

Knowing that a key strength of the intel K series chips is their overclockability, you are categorically stating its ok to ignore that key metric?

Think of it this way.

You are a consumer.
You want a comparison of the products at their max potential.
But the reviewers are only showing this for one product and not another.

How are these reviews useful to you with that in mind?

To me any review running an 8700k at 4.4ghz is simply void and invalid, its not meaningful data. Its even worse for the 8600k as that has much worse stock clocks, yet can clock to the same levels as the 8700k.

I got no issue with the spectre/meltdown patches been applied but I do have an issue if hardware is been running "gimped".

 

[opethdisciple]

Guru3d at anything over 1080p have the 2700x and the 8700k very close to each other.

 

[TrixP10]

of course, also a ryzen 2 at 4.2 ghz uses close to 300 watts, efficiency goes out the window above 4ghz.

That video with the ryzen 2 at 4.2 all cores vs intel 4.4 all 4 cores was probably nowhere near equal power draw. One chip was been pushed harder than the other.

I do praise AMD for pushing their hips harder out the box, whilst intel are clearly leaving massive headroom, but I think intel have left that headroom knowing that previously hardware that overclocks well gets rave reviews, they may rethink now and we may start seeing stock clocks close to 5ghz.

Well if all Intel i(somethingstupid) chips clock at 5Ghz. then why don't they sell them at that?

Ryzen+ using 300 watts - don't think so.

 

[SupraWez]

I got no issue with the spectre/meltdown patches been applied but I do have an issue if hardware is been running "gimped".

How is it gimped if its running how the manufacturer intended?

 

[chrcoluk]

We're a minority here, a niche market. We are in no way representative of the volume market AMD and Intel so desperately crave.

A friend and I ran through the stats this morning and estimated that less than 5% or 8600k and 8700k processors out their are overclocked. Heck, even the HP Omen "high end"machines are stock settings! Do you think the mass market reviewers will want to cater to the 95% or 5%?

If you're an overclocker, go find a review of an 8700k - that will will have OC results in it. It's entirely normal for a CPU review to only have OC results for the cpu being reviewed and stock settings for the comparison hardware.

exactly what I am trying to tell you, they try to put the "reviewed" product in the best light possible, as likely requested by the vendor paying them to do the review.

But you saying this is ok practice?

Really we should be seeing stock vs max 24/7 safe overclocked results for all products tested, then I got no issue with that part of the testing.

What we seeing here with these combination of factors, games picked for testing, clocks on intel hardware, and bios options activated for the AMD chips, giving the best possible results for the AMD chips, and this is because AMD will have requested it like this.

 

[TrixP10]

The majority of desktop users dont watch these reviews either.

The typical consumer of that content who actually does buy K series chips for gaming hardware will overclock K series chips.

Just to be clear.

Knowing that a key strength of the intel K series chips is their overclockability, you are categorically stating its ok to ignore that key metric?

Think of it this way.

You are a consumer.
You want a comparison of the products at their max potential.
But the reviewers are only showing this for one product and not another.

How are these reviews useful to you with that in mind?

To me any review running an 8700k at 4.4ghz is simply void and invalid, its not meaningful data. Its even worse for the 8600k as that has much worse stock clocks, yet can clock to the same levels as the 8700k.

I got no issue with the spectre/meltdown patches been applied but I do have an issue if hardware is been running "gimped".

sour grapes methinks.

Perhaps we need another web site XFR2.com

 

[chrcoluk]

Well if all Intel i(somethingstupid) chips clock at 5Ghz. then why don't they sell them at that?

Ryzen+ using 300 watts - don't think so.

I think the vast majority could run at 4.8ghz.

I would say to answer your question.

1 - worse power efficency for marketing, not a 95 watt cpu at 4.8ghz
2 - lower yields (this is same reason they not soldering as pointed out by OC3D)
3 - because they could get away with it

Now I think intel are seeing reviewers completely disregard overclocking if I was them I would abandon the K product line and just sell chips with higher stock clocks. The K advantages on these reviews seem to have lost marketing advantages.

 

[chrcoluk]

sour grapes methinks.

Perhaps we need another web site XFR2.com

No I just recognise flawed reviews.

I would have no issue if we was seeing 4.2 clocked ryzens beating 4.8-5.0 clocked intel, but thats not what we seeing. Its not apple to apple. Its apple vs another apple with bite taken out of it.

Whilst you are turning a blind eye, because it favours what you want to see.