-
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" ?
- Thread starter beany_bot
- Start date
Caporegime
Soldato
Soldato
So 0.2 boost to both base clock and boost clock which sounds quite tangible.
Will make for some pretty exciting chips up at the "sharper" end if you follow that along the SKU's, maybe a bit of power saving along the way and this will probably be the "killer" chip AMD wanted to launch first time around.
I've already decided I will be upgrading, I just need to make my choice of go lower end (2700) and clock up or just go easy option and buy the higher end (2800X?) ?
IF that is boosting to 3.8 GHz single threaded, IF an average R5 1600 boosts to 3.6 GHz single threaded, and IF the average scores on Geekbench are accurate, then this score suggests a ~4% IPC improvement in this particular benchmark. This would also apply if it was XFR boosting to 3.9 GHz and the average R5 1600 is XFR boosting to 3.7 GHz. However, we know there are supposed XFR changes so maybe it's just running at 4.0 GHz XFR during the test and IPC is near-identical.
So basically I know nothing.
Caporegime
That would make the 2800X 3.8 Base and 4.2 Boost, or maybe a bit more at the top end like + 300Mhz, 3.9Ghz base and 4.3Ghz boost.
I wouldn't take much notice of engendering sample clock speed leaks tho, Ryzen one leaks like this had a 2.8Ghz clock speed, which caused a #### storm. it looks plausible tho, if they are under-clocked its only going to be by 100 or 200Mhz at most.
The fact that it already scores higher (in this test) than an R5 1600X does indeed suggest they must have some more in the tank at the top-end.
Caporegime
You're right, i'm going to run a proper clock for clock comparison later but at 3.9Ghz my 1600 only scores 3% higher single and multi-threaded, looks like the IPC is indeed a bit higher.
Soldato
Would love a 4GHz base top end model 2800X/1600X, a nice 4.0/4.3/4.4XFR. A man can dream 
Soldato
Would love a 4GHz base top end model 2800X/1600X, a nice 4.0/4.3/4.4XFR. A man can dream
I have a feeling they will be cashing in on not having launched an 1800 & 1800X model so I'm expecting a 2800 (base below 4Ghz and boost over) and a 2800X which will be base and boost over 4 (4.1 & 4.3) to put rough figures down.
Soldato
Still not sure how high I'm planning on buying atm. Moderately tempted to go all in but I know it'll still only be 200 mhz or so in it.
Caporegime
Soldato
Technically Threadripper is also Ryzen 7. Intel rarely have more than 2-3 variants of Core i7s on their mainstream platforms and AMD basically followed suit, it's not that likely that they will change the model this time around, especially when they are pushing clocks as it is.
In fact I think the only time Intel has launched more than two Core i7 SKUs (excluding mobile, low power, and refresh parts that are released later) was Bloomfield: the 920, 940, and 965 EE. AMD are already bucking the trend with three!
Don't forget the motherboards improvements, too.
Soldato
I am confirmed in my decision to go Ryzen 7 last March as I have had, since at least May 2017, a fully functioning fast 8C/16t system that does everything I throw at it very well. It is good to see improvements in the pipeline though and yes another 200MHz each increment is welcomed, I will stay with gen 1 though as the improvement is not enough for an upgrade considering my current capability.
Caporegime
Ok so this makes no sense, my Ryzen 1600 @ 3.8Ghz Single threaded and 3.4Ghz Multithreaded.
Vs this apparent Ryzen 2600 at the same speeds.
Single-threaded @ 3.8Ghz
Ryzen 1600: 4354 (+2%)
Ryzen 2600: 4269
Multi-threaded @ 3.4Ghz
Ryzen 1600: 18564
Ryzen 2600: 20102 (+8.3%)
So according to this Ryzen two has 8% higher IPC in Multi threading but 2% lower IPC in singular threading.
If that is Ryzen two the only explanation i have for that is Boost is not working, it is in fact running at 3.4Ghz in single threading.
My Ryzen 1600 scored 4012 @ 3.4Ghz Single threading, so if Ryzen 2600 boost is not active in this then 4012 vs 4269 is a difference of 6.4%.
3.4Ghz https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/7106109
3.8Ghz https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/7106168
Soldato
Ok so this makes no sense, my Ryzen 1600 @ 3.8Ghz Single threaded and 3.4Ghz Multithreaded.
Vs this apparent Ryzen 2600 at the same speeds.
Single-threaded @ 3.8Ghz
Ryzen 1600: 4354 (+2%)
Ryzen 2600: 4269
Multi-threaded @ 3.4Ghz
Ryzen 1600: 18564
Ryzen 2600: 20102 (+8.3%)
So according to this Ryzen two has 8% higher IPC in Multi threading but 2% lower IPC in singular threading.
If that is Ryzen two the only explanation i have for that is Boost is not working, it is in fact running at 3.4Ghz in single threading.
My Ryzen 1600 scored 4012 @ 3.4Ghz Single threading, so id Ryzen 2600 boost is not active in this then 4012 vs 4269 is a difference of 6.4%.
3.4Ghz https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/7106109
3.8Ghz https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/7106168
Could be memory speed related?
Caporegime
Possible i guess. But then why the 8% gain in MT but a 2% loss in ST?