• 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" ?

4K8KW10 said:
I can't find any information on the audio, complete silence... It seems only Asus' own marketing department shouts about it :rolleyes:

Ok, thanks for your insights - looking forward to get the Aorus 7 soon ;)
Click to expand...

CZ0JHSb.jpg
 
16 cores is great. The developers must use this tremendous power and make 4K mainstream, and then 8K for the masses, too. Lots of time was lost while the market depended on Intel, solely.
 
4K8KW10 said:
16 cores is great. The developers must use this tremendous power and make 4K mainstream, and then 8K for the masses, too. Lots of time was lost while the market depended on Intel, solely.
Click to expand...
They should start with deacwnt 4k monitors at descent price.

At this moment you are better of getting 4k lg oled tv.... For 1300 quid or samsung quantum dot tv if ya got vega for freesync.

Other day i look acer predator 4k 120hz... 2000 bucks a true WTF price.
 
4K8KW10 said:
16 cores is great. The developers must use this tremendous power and make 4K mainstream, and then 8K for the masses, too. Lots of time was lost while the market depended on Intel, solely.
Click to expand...


This is just fud though isn't it? We're GPU limited at 4K. Price/performance hasn't changed for years and AMD aren't exactly leading the charge with their GPUS. And I say this and I have a vega 64
 
Martini1991 said:
We're GPU limited at 4K
Click to expand...

At 4K, the CPUs are almost left sitting idle, aren't they? The entire system is messed up, with the CPUs having little help in 3D rendering.
My thought is for a more aggressive CPU-accelerated 3D rendering.
If we rely on GPUs solely, we will never have playable framerates at above 4K resolutions.
Hell, I don't know when a mainstream-class RX 560 or similar will be able to accelerate at 4K.
 
4K8KW10 said:
At 4K, the CPUs are almost left sitting idle, aren't they? The entire system is messed up, with the CPUs having little help in 3D rendering.
My thought is for a more aggressive CPU-accelerated 3D rendering.
If we rely on GPUs solely, we will never have playable framerates at above 4K resolutions.
Hell, I don't know when a mainstream-class RX 560 or similar will be able to accelerate at 4K.
Click to expand...

CPU's aren't up to it.
3DS Max 2006 IIRC had something that I think you're alluding to and it wasn't exactly pretty.

GPU's just need to get faster at a faster rate.
 
Martini1991 said:
CPU's aren't up to it.
3DS Max 2006 IIRC had something that I think you're alluding to and it wasn't exactly pretty.

GPU's just need to get faster at a faster rate.
Click to expand...
CPU rendering is like most stupid idea I'w read in this topic.
I could be WRONG but i think back in 1996 small unknown company called 3DFX started selling something called Graphics accelerator. It was called VooDoo and it DEMOLISHED everything in rendering performance in Every aspect. Think this sums it up.
http://vintage3d.org/images/voodoo/glquake.jpg

It's like an idea of using CPU to mine bitcoins buhahahaha.

PS. CPU is used for physics calculations when rendering images so it is kinda helping with rendering. SHOCKING !!!!
 
Last edited:
So confused with this Ryzen malarky :)
So, my 2600x is running fine. Finally got round to putting my water cooler on it (although I'm thinking new pump is needed). So temps have dropped quite a bit, so thought I'd dabble in the old bios.
Thinking I'd let XFR do it's thing, but give it a helping hand with Precision Boost, but all that looks to have done is lower my vcore? I assumed it would boost it more and I'd see higher clocks? So, took that off and tried doing an offset to reduce vcore to allow clocks to boost. It seems to do nothing, and in some cases keeps my vcore higher. Maybe I need a positive offset, or do I need to change some states somewhere else?
Using a Prime Pro and can't do BCLK changes. There's not much on t'internet for this board yet
 
JJimmyJ said:
So confused with this Ryzen malarky :)
So, my 2600x is running fine. Finally got round to putting my water cooler on it (although I'm thinking new pump is needed). So temps have dropped quite a bit, so thought I'd dabble in the old bios.
Thinking I'd let XFR do it's thing, but give it a helping hand with Precision Boost, but all that looks to have done is lower my vcore? I assumed it would boost it more and I'd see higher clocks? So, took that off and tried doing an offset to reduce vcore to allow clocks to boost. It seems to do nothing, and in some cases keeps my vcore higher. Maybe I need a positive offset, or do I need to change some states somewhere else?
Using a Prime Pro and can't do BCLK changes. There's not much on t'internet for this board yet
Click to expand...

It's a weird one for sure. I can't change BCLK (confusingly labelled APU in my BIOS- unless I'm being really thick and that's something else...) at all- even at 101 it won't boot. XFR gives me ridiculous vcores, up to 1.58v at times, so I use a set speed and voltage now.
I tried XFR with negative offset to get the volts down- no change. EXACTLY the same. Maybe there's still some BIOS oddities to iron out...
Since I whopped the water loop in, I can however now run 43x all-core at 1.39v. Ok, it doesn't downclock but temps are fine, and the system is very snappy to use, and I haven't managed to freeze or crash it yet.
But these chips certainly do have their quirks...
 
DoneADougalOnSofa said:
...XFR gives me ridiculous vcores, up to 1.58v at times...
Click to expand...

XFR is one of those things that you're happier when you don't look too closely at it :/ AMD have always said this kind of voltage is fine and that it's only sustained for microseconds at a time, but it does look horrible on your readouts.
 
opethdisciple said:
It's runs with out a hitch at 3133MHz however. I think it's the limitation of the mobo. I say on a German forum evidence of the prime pro being limited to 3133 where the x470 was faster.
Click to expand...

To be honest in the 20 years I have been building PCs I have never had RAM run at it's marketed speed. It has always been one notch down that it was stable. Though I don't think I started trying until the days of DDR400.

So when I buy a new PC I look at the CPU/Mobo supported memory speeds and buy memory one (or two) notches above that, expecting to clock it one notch under it's headline figure.

So I currently have 3600Mhz RAM running on DOCP @ 3400Mhz.
 
Doubt this will apply to anyone but who's gone from the 17 series to 27 who happens to play Guild Wars 2 has the quicker stock speeds made any difference?
 
I managed to overclock mine to 4.2Ghz at 1.4V, but benchmarking it against full AUTO XFR the improvements are minimal. I get maybe another 100 points in Time Spy. At 4.25Ghz is became unstable and would lock up once in a while running benchmarks, even at 1.5V.

Worse is if I use the Asus 5 way optimization software it freaks out at 4.05Ghz and promptly sets the BIOS to a fixed 4Ghz clock speed. Here I lose performance over stock.

With AUTO mode I see the favourite cores hitting 4.35Ghz frequently and most hitting 4.2Ghz for moments. The minimum clock during a benchmark in AUTO is around 4Ghz, but at idle they drop back to 3.6Ghz at times.

I'm concluding that for gaming and general use it isn't worth overclocking it. Maybe if you are about to do something paritcularly CPU intensive that will take hours you can shave a few minutes off by manually setting 4.2Ghz clock.

Without any overclock I get 55-60fps (V-sync'd) at full ultra at 3440x1440 resolution in Far Cry5 and ROTR (mostly). So I don't even need to bother overclocking the 1070ti which I found can be "stable" but present strange things like flashing red lights randomly appearing if the memory is clocked to +370Mhz rather than +350Mhz. With the best OC I can get from it applied my GPU was running at 90% utilisation running Far Cry 5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom