• 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" ?

chrcoluk said:
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.
Click to expand...

And - because it doesn't favor what you want to see
 
SupraWez said:
How is it gimped if its running how the manufacturer intended?
Click to expand...

if the manufacturer intended it this way why do they unlock the options on the K series chips.
Also intel have a warranty program for the K series chips as well called the intel tuning program.

Do you honestly think when the next intel chip is reviewed they will ommit overclock results? You know they wont, because their job will be to then show the intel chip in the best light possible.
 
chrcoluk said:
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.
Click to expand...

We already have the -7 8086k supposed to be 5.1ghz boost.
 
Mercutio said:
We already have the -7 8086k supposed to be 5.1ghz boost.
Click to expand...

yes, this is the way I see intel going in the future, to match this new style of reviewing. Although this boost is very likely on 1-2 cores only, it isnt said what the all core boost is, but probably in the 4.6 to 4.8 range.

I used to hate OC3D but considering his last 2 AMD product reviews he did leave the OC 8600k on the CPU graph for ryzen 2 and he also had the 1080ti present on the vega graph, he has probably come out with the most integrity.
 
chrcoluk said:
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.
Click to expand...

No - they are being fair. OC's aren't guaranteed, so it's best to benchmark comparison hardware at stock as that the GUARANTEED experience every user will have of that hardware.

But you saying this is ok practice?
Click to expand...

You're really over thinking it - it's not some conspiracy to make the cpu being reviewed look better.

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.
Click to expand...

What is 24/7 max safe OC on an 8700K then? 4.5ghz? 4.7ghz? 5ghz? A 1 in 100 5.2ghz oc? What if the reviewing site only manage to get the comparison 8700k to 4.6ghz - are you going to cry conspiracy then as well?

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.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone's butt hurt that reviews aren't pandering to their confirmation bias tbh.
 
Anyone else noticed that's the statements around ECC support have changed a little this time round, E.G Asrock on the Taichi Ultimate X470 (clear as mud as ever - but looks like ECC is Ryzen Pro only now)

- AMD Ryzen series CPUs (Pinnacle Ridge) support DDR4 3466+(OC) / 3200(OC) / 2933/2667/2400/2133 ECC & non-ECC, un-buffered memory*
- AMD Ryzen series CPUs (Summit Ridge) support DDR4 3466+(OC) / 3200(OC) / 2933(OC) / 2667/2400/2133 ECC & non-ECC, un-buffered memory*
- AMD Ryzen series CPUs (Raven Ridge) support DDR4 3466+(OC) / 3200(OC) / 2933(OC) / 2667/2400/2133 non-ECC, un-buffered memory*

*For Ryzen Series CPUs (Raven Ridge), ECC is only supported with PRO CPUs.
 
amigafan2003 said:
No - they are being fair. OC's aren't guaranteed, so it's best to benchmark comparison hardware at stock as that the GUARANTEED experience every user will have of that hardware.



You're really over thinking it - it's not some conspiracy to make the cpu being reviewed look better.



What is 24/7 max safe OC on an 8700K then? 4.5ghz? 4.7ghz? 5ghz? A 1 in 100 5.2ghz oc? What if the reviewing site only manage to get the comparison 8700k to 4.6ghz - are you going to cry conspiracy then as well?



Sounds like someone's butt hurt that reviews aren't pandering to their confirmation bias tbh.
Click to expand...

This is why I said by all means have the stock results there as well, The stock result been what every single chip should be able to perform at, the overclocked result been what the reviewers chip can perform at. Personally I would use 4.8 as the number as I consider that a reasonable 24/7 clock that every 8600 and 8700 can achieve but yes its not guaranteed.

Why would I be butthurt, didnt you read I said I would have no issue if we seen a 4.2 ryzen 2 outperform a intel 4.8?

I actually wanted to see that, then it makes intel improve their own products. e.g. I have managed to get a 6 core intel chip at mainstream prices all because AMD brought out a solid ryzen product last yeat, good competition is something I like to see.
 
SupraWez said:
How is it gimped if its running how the manufacturer intended?
Click to expand...

I was about to say that a K chip is unlocked so it can be overclocked which is true, However, that's where things become a bit grey with Intel, Today with the 8700k they'd state that a k chip isn't running as intended if its not overclocked, However if you remember the heat issue people had with the 7700k when overclocked we got a very different answer, that time around we were told to run the K chip at stock. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Intel are selling the chips knowing people will overclock them, what they doing is not been prepared to support them outside of stock spec on the built in warranty, although they will replace (but not provide tech support) them out of spec on their addon warranty which I think is usually priced at about 10% of RRP https://click.intel.com/tuningplan/

It is great AMD are willing to support their chips much closer to their operating capacity. They may have been forced to do this via market conditions but they are still doing it.
 
opethdisciple said:
Techpowerup also have the CPUs very close in gaming.
Click to expand...

There's a lot there that doesn't make sense though, For example overclocking gives lower game performance for the 2700x, However if we give that a pass as an XFR2 bonus what about where we're seeing results like the First gen Ryzen 6 cores being ahead of the 2700x? I think they need to smooth out there benching suite.
 
nashathedog said:
There's a lot there that doesn't make sense though, For example overclocking gives lower game performance for the 2700x, However if we give that a pass as an XFR2 bonus what about where we're seeing results like the First gen Ryzen 6 cores being ahead of the 2700x? I think they need to smooth out there benching suite.
Click to expand...

I agree it looks a bit iffy as most reviews have the 8700k and 2700x in some games quite far apart.

However having had my 1700 at 3.8GHz for the last year I know the performance is fast enough in games. And the 2700x should be faster.
 
opethdisciple said:
I agree it looks a bit iffy as most reviews have the 8700k and 2700x in some games quite far apart.

However having had my 1700 at 3.8GHz for the last year I know the performance is fast enough in games. And the 2700x should be faster.
Click to expand...

I've had no issue gaming on my 1600x either, It's more than capable of keeping up with the gpu's I've tried with it.
I'd also like to see the Meltdown & Spectre patches used with Intel as if I ever buy another Intel chip that needs them I'll be using them.
Not using them doesn't make sense to me.
 
From the Reviews its pretty easy to see that overclocking the X chips is not necessary or worth it.
It's exactly the same as Last year
Simple Rules For getting the most of Ryzen
1) If you don't want to overclock get the 'X' Chips
2) If you do want to overclock get the non 'X' Chips
3) If you want to get the best performance from any of the Ryzen chips get decent cooling.
4) If you want to increase performance, even more, get b-die 3200+ ram sticks and add low latency timings

Same As Last year!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom