Ryzen "2" ?

[Greboth]

@Scougar @Greboth

Not sure, but this dude in the video below posted yesterday, he managed to run a 2700X at 4.1GHz @ 1.35v running 3200MHz RAM, with the MSI B350 Tomahawk Arctic. Only a quick run in Prime 95, but still promising.

Thanks for this, I can’t watch it now but will watch it later.

 

[ltron]

Okay 4.3.

I've moved my Ryzen build back in to my C70 case so there's plenty of air flow and even though the temps are good it still can't do the advertised numbers. They should be doing these speeds as they come not after loads of tweaking.

4,300 MHz (1 core),
4,200 MHz (2 cores),
4,100 MHz (3 cores),
4,100 MHz (4 cores),
4,100 MHz (5 cores),
4,000 MHz (6 cores),
4,000 MHz (7 cores),
4,000 MHz (8 cores).

I'll see how I get on with overclocking it this week but from the reviews the 2700x's are already at their limit and unlikely to do better, Some sites are reporting worse performance when manually overclocked which is a feather in XFR 2's bonnet but a fact that makes them being unlocked pointless. My 1600x seemed to be stable with a 4ghz overclock but I didn't like the voltages with my low profile cooler so I stuck it at 3.9, It'll be interesting to see how the 2700x does as the bigger case has allowed me to go with a bigger cooler..

With Vega I couldn't get them to hold the claimed boost speed even after manually overclocking them, It was no different when I got a non reference version.

I'm confused, Intel have the same behaviour with their boost algorithm. On the 8700K there is a single core boost of 4.7 GHz and an all core boost of 4.3 and steps in between depending on how many cores are being used, with a base of 3.7.

The only time it will maintain an all core boost of 4.7 is if you enable MCE which is an auto overclock by the motherboard manufacturer and is nothing to do with Intel, nor is it guaranteed to work by them. In fact in heavy Blender workloads, with MCE on, Gamers Nexus' sample was unstable.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

The 2700x is meant to boost and hold 4.35 ghz.

No. It's never been advertised or suggested that's the case.

 

[nashathedog]

I'm not talking about maintaining a single core boost across all the cores, I'm saying it should be able to do what I copy pasted in the last post out of the box, be it 8 core at 4.0, 4 cores at 4.1 or 1 core at 4.3.

I may of been too quick to moan because I still have a bee in my bonnet over Vega, we'll see, I'll know more tomorrow when I get to do some better testing, I'll post some shots then, I've just been benching across all 8 cores and 6 are hitting 4ghz as they should but two are sat under 3ghz for some reason, all 16 threads are showing to be at 100% load. Temps are quite good, between 44 and 48 I've took some screenshots but I'm off to bed now as I need to be up and out early so I'll get some more tests done tomorrow and after that I'll post either a strongly worded apology to AMD if it's needed or I'll do a bit more moaning.

EDIT: I got the temps wrong the highest they hit was 68.

No. It's never been advertised or suggested that's the case.

Yes you're right I was already corrected on that.

 

[eddiew]

No. It's never been advertised or suggested that's the case.

Then OCUK (others too) are doing us all a disservice by listing it as a 4.35ghz chip. Arguably a poor choice of labelling, and maybe we're quibbling 0.05 on top of 4.3, but still, I'd prefer the big title to contain the likely speed of the CPU with it's supplied cooler on a 'normal' motherboard in a 'normal' case when running a sustained load of some kind. Average Joe is going to see 4.35 and assume that it will do that for more than half second bursts.

Meanwhile the 8700k is listed on OCUK as 3.7ghz.

That aside, am I the only person would love to see a 6-core 2650X with a couple hundred more mhz?

 

[eddiew]

Yes you're right I was already corrected on that.

In your defense, OCUK list it as 4.35ghz, vs the 8700k listed at 3.7... One of those should be amended.

 

[nashathedog]

In your defense, OCUK list it as 4.35ghz, vs the 8700k listed at 3.7... One of those should be amended.

Thankyou

 

[Martini1991]

In your defense, OCUK list it as 4.35ghz, vs the 8700k listed at 3.7... One of those should be amended.

While I was quick on that point, there's also other E-tailers who don't list it as such. I don't think the blame can be laid at AMD's feet in that case.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Meanwhile the 8700k is listed on OCUK as 3.7ghz.

?????

• Lithography Process: 14 nm
• Cores: 6
• Threads: 12
• Frequency: 3.70 GHz (Turbo Mode 4.70GHz)
• Cache: 12MB
• Memory Controller: Dual channel DDR4 2400/2666/3000/3200/3600/4000/4133/4266/4500/4600/5000+
• Socket: LGA1151
• Memory compatibility: All DDR4 is compatible (Check your motherboards manual and we recommend 8 Pack 3200MHz and faster kits which guarantee Samsung B die for upto 5000MHz OC)
• TDP: 95W
• 3yr Warranty

How is that any different from:-

Specification:
- 16 Threads (8C / 16T)
- Base clock: 3.70GHz
- Boost clock: 4.35GHz
- Precision Boost 2
- Precision Boost Overdrive
- Wraith Prism CPU Cooler included
- Memory Support: Upto 3600MHz (OcUK recommends 8 Pack 3200MHz & 3600MHz Dual Kits)
- TDP: 105W
- Warranty: 3yr

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I'm not talking about maintaining a single core boost across all the cores, I'm saying it should be able to do what I copy pasted in the last post out of the box, be it 8 core at 4.0, 4 cores at 4.1 or 1 core at 4.3.

Mine does do that - haven't touched the bios other than load optimised defaults and select boot order. That on an x370 board as well.

 

[Hotwired]

I think the docs say you will only boost cores when under 60 degrees, so decent cooling is going to be required to get the best of it - chilled water maybe?

Yes it respects high temps and cuts the boost.

So if you are baking your cpu it says no to making temps worse and won't boost to the maximum advertised.

Here is kitguru talking about it: https://www.kitguru.net/components/...iew-2nd-gen-ryzen-breaks-4ghz-out-of-the-box/

We know that clock speeds have improved and that AMD has worked on Precision Boost and XFR, however this dynamic overclocking is based on the power envelope and the quality of your CPU cooling. The similarity with Intel is that AMD is happy to specify base clock speeds and maximum Turbo speeds but won’t talk about likely all-core operational speeds.

The stock cooler is the best stock cooler ever but I don't think its good enough to let the cpu hit maximum boost in typical inside-a-case scenarios. Maybe on an open bench with low ambient but that's a lot of advantage.

 

[eddiew]

????

Product titles / labels

 

[eddiew]

While I was quick on that point, there's also other E-tailers who don't list it as such. I don't think the blame can be laid at AMD's feet in that case.

Fair But this is a certain etailer's forum.

 

[BongoHunter]

Yes it respects high temps and cuts the boost.

So if you are baking your cpu it says no to making temps worse and won't boost to the maximum advertised.

Here is kitguru talking about it: https://www.kitguru.net/components/...iew-2nd-gen-ryzen-breaks-4ghz-out-of-the-box/

The stock cooler is the best stock cooler ever but I don't think its good enough to let the cpu hit maximum boost in typical inside-a-case scenarios. Maybe on an open bench with low ambient but that's a lot of advantage.

The top of the line Noctua air coolers should do it - I have the NH-U14S with dual 140mm Noctua fans on the TR 1950X (180W TDP) and very very rarely see it go above 60 degrees even under extreme loads (highest I've ever seen was 65 deg with a 12 VM Elasticsearch cluster working through 2TB Index - and that was with GPU at 100% as well).

Just did 15 min stress test and even at the high ambient temp we have this evening it peaks at 57, I suppose the massive surface area of TR does help a bit though compared to the AM4 chips.

For reference I'm using a corsair carbide 400c case (thankyou popular highstreet store closing down sale) with the following intakes; 2x120mm Corsair AF Quiet 120mm + a 140mm Corsair AF that came with the case. Exhaust is just a single 120mm Corsair AirFlow (stock with case). Have a light all core OC of 3.8 GHz (400mhz over stock per core) and XFR still hits 4.2

 

[Mickcas]

as much as I think this is a great step for AMD I'll be sticking to my 1700. would have loved to drop in a 2700 or even 2600 since I only game but I doubt I'd see much if any improvement even though the 2700x looks like a great option to just drop in and let it do its thing. Roll on next years chips

 

[theforce]

as much as I think this is a great step for AMD I'll be sticking to my 1700. would have loved to drop in a 2700 or even 2600 since I only game but I doubt I'd see much if any improvement even though the 2700x looks like a great option to just drop in and let it do its thing. Roll on next years chips

Planning on building a new system in 2019, too. They have hyped the upcoming 7nm process and hopefully, we won't see delays with Ryzen 2. Will be interesting to see what AMD delivers. PCI-E4 maybe even?

 

[AndreiD]

Worth keeping an eye on SSD performance if not using the Ryzen Balanced power setting. With my 1950X and Prime-A board, my SSD was reporting low IOPS according to the Samsung Magician bench tool when using the high performance option. Changing back to Ryzen balanced resolved it.

Haven't noticed any change in IOPS or sequential speeds between Ryzen Balanced and High Performance, but I'm also only on SATA SSDs, might be different if you have NVMe drives. If there's an issue, I reckon it will be mitigated by the Spring Windows 10 update since they're putting the Ryzen Balanced power plan changes into the default ones.

 

[AndreiD]

Also, where are all of those consumer champions who were lambasting Intel for not releasing all core turbo clocks anymore? AMD is being incredibly hush-hush about all core turbo clocks for Pinnacle Ridge, where's the outrage?

 

[Hotwired]

AMD is being incredibly hush-hush about all core turbo clocks for Pinnacle Ridge

Be a bit stupid of them to advertise a system they don't have.

Far too many conditions in the new boosting system to stick on a box so they list the best case clock speed boost on single core.

 

[AndreiD]

Of course, they're on par with Intel's Turbo now, but I'm calling out a few 'consumer champions' on this forum who were all up in arms when Intel did it

Either way, it's the proper way to do Turbos since it squeezes as much performance as possible out of a chip at a certain thermal & power envelope and it's noticeable in gaming since 4.2Ghz all core overclocks are generally worse compared to stock in scenarios that needed single core performance. PBO is nice too since that just apparently raises the TDP rating up to 140W.