It's not completely irrelevant, it just doesn't matter that much.
-
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
It only doesn't matter (to any extent) if there is a game that literally only uses 2 threads. The severity of loads on 4 -8 threads is irrelevant. Any load will trigger the boost relevant for those number of cores.
CPUs don't run 4.7ghz on 2 cores, 4.3ghz on the remaining cores (made up example). It's either 4.7ghz on only 2 cores or 4.3ghz on 2+ cores (I know the 8700K has more in between for 1 - 6 cores).
Although in fairness it does sound like the new Ryzens will be much smarter about boosting and "do their best" to meet the demands of your particular thread count. Unless that was also fake news and actually they're still 2-core and all-core boost modes 
Soldato
It's genuinely what precision boost 2 is all about. Rather than dropping core speeds all round when more than "x" were in use, it'll try to balance things better.
So when a game comes along and has most of it's processing in a main thread and lesser bits for others, all the cores get clocked down and the main thread gets speed dropped too. What it'll now do is try and keep the main thread running as close to full as it can while only opening up extra threads as much as they need. It'll be a weird one to math, there will be some games it's much better on than gen1 though.
It's going the Intel way of there being more options for 1 to 8 cores in use but from what I understood of it, there might be variable clock speeds on different cores when it kicks in.
Last edited:
That is not how precision boost works. I have used 4 different Ryzen chips including 3 X chips. Even with deliberate single core synthetic loads XFR isn't triggered 100% of the time.
All loaded cores are locked at the same speed and was 2 or 2+ in terms of scenarios. Intel have a more granular set up and AMD will with Ryzen 2xxx but all loaded cores will still be locked to the same speed.
I also do not understand why people are now trying to defend an innacurate statement by trying to slightly change the argument. Most 2017 games will load all 6 of the 8700K cores to some extent anyway and approach all 8 for Ryzen (many games do all).
The all core boost is far more important than the single or 2 core boost and not as per the original post that responded to me.
If you don't believe me then check live clock speeds via rivatuner as you game.
All loaded cores are locked at the same speed and was 2 or 2+ in terms of scenarios. Intel have a more granular set up and AMD will with Ryzen 2xxx but all loaded cores will still be locked to the same speed.
I also do not understand why people are now trying to defend an innacurate statement by trying to slightly change the argument. Most 2017 games will load all 6 of the 8700K cores to some extent anyway and approach all 8 for Ryzen (many games do all).
The all core boost is far more important than the single or 2 core boost and not as per the original post that responded to me.
If you don't believe me then check live clock speeds via rivatuner as you game.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
Its all very well going on about using 2 or 4 cores/threads with boost ect but what happens in the background? Windows loves doing updates, virus checkers kicking off... vast numbers of processes and services doing there things..
If i can get an 8 core cpu that is within 10% single thread performance of a 6 core cpu while hammering it in multithreadded apps i will take it any day over some FPS queen that will struggle as time goes on with load.
...and i cant see many reasons for choosing different.
If i can get an 8 core cpu that is within 10% single thread performance of a 6 core cpu while hammering it in multithreadded apps i will take it any day over some FPS queen that will struggle as time goes on with load.
...and i cant see many reasons for choosing different.
Caporegime
Supposed paper launch in 8 days, availability in April.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 11
I know AMD said April but were did 8 days for NDA lift come from?
Caporegime
I checked the GDC list and found "AMD new CPU" thing in it for the 21'st, i did post it in one of these threads, i've lost the link now tho.
Caporegime
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 11
Good find thanks humbug 
Another supposed benchmark leak posted on Reddit. As always: it could be nonsense, and it's really hard to compare anyway when numbers vary so much between systems with identical CPUs, but it looks to be in the ballpark of 10% faster than the 1800X, which agrees with the earlier leaked numbers and months of speculation. Probably boosting to 4.3-4.4 GHz, plus it has ~10 ns lower memory latency in this particular benchmark.
It'll be interesting to see how the improved IMC translates to IPC, particularly in games.
It'll be interesting to see how the improved IMC translates to IPC, particularly in games.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
was running with 2400mhz ram also i think? definitely room for improvement there as well if that is the case.
Single-Core Score 4746
Multi-Core Score 24772
This result is lower than what I see in the database:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&q=ryzen+1800x&sort=multicore_score
Please advise.