• 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" ?

The FX 8 core.
250 watts
5ghz
Wraith
Cooler.

.....

Using the same HSF on a chip with half the TDP minds blown. Invincible.
 
Last edited:
Not all Ryzen chips can do 4.0 GHz to begin with. 3.9 GHz is a more reasonable goal, but yeah with the stock cooler you're looking at 3.7-3.8 GHz max probably. Still, not bad for a stock cooler!
 
chroniclard said:
I cant get 4 with water cooling. Maybe if I pushed the voltage a fair bit higher but not really comfortable with that for a 24/7 clock. :)
Click to expand...

They don't seem to respond to extra cooling unless you go really cold. Even when looking at the guys using LN2 they don't seem to do more than low 5Ghz.

I found you hit point that every .25 bin needs massively more voltage than the one before. I just got to the point that the voltage was getting too high for longeverty.

Anyway tantrum aside. Having used the HSF's in question on a few machines I'd say you probably could TBH. I'm not sure it would be a good idea but you probably could.
 
Last edited:
In February ryzen 2 will release and it will be much better than ryzen as you may know ryzen was actually a worst case scenario so this will hopefully be better
 
I can do 4.0 at 1.4 load but on my board it needs 1.55v BIOS = 1.45v idle = 1.4v load. Bit crap and not worth it for the gain.

I have a 360 AIO which can keep temps under 60 at full fan speed though :)
 
rhysj6 said:
In February ryzen 2 will release and it will be much better than ryzen as you may know ryzen was actually a worst case scenario so this will hopefully be better
Click to expand...

Very soon Engineering Samples should pop up as well and give is a real clue about what exactly is to come.
 
Panos said:
Gamers Nexus used 2 games ONLY at 2560x1440 and both have explicitly have shown issues with the Ryzen CPU.
Especially TWW1 runs constantly on the last thread not core of the given CPU, consuming it at all times at 100%, and barely any other thread or core is being used. Hence why Intel systems at high clock speed perform better.
Anyone who has the game and puts the MSI AB overlay will say the same.
Also it has issues with NV DX12 that cripples it's performance even on the 6800K, because of the above issue. At DX11 is less prominent and the FPS 30% higher.

While others using TWW2 on the benchmarks (along side numerous other current games), shows completely different picture, because TWW2 is running on CORES not THREADS, which the tweaked engine avoids like a leper.

It also scales greatly among multiple cores, depending how many resources are available on the last core which is running again at 100%. That levels out the performance even at 1080p.
There are videos showing 76% usage on core 4 for a 5Ghz 7700K and the rest of the cores moving accordingly. While on lower speed CPUs, the last core runs at 100% and the other cores see heavier loads. But the fps are always dependant of the GPU and same across the board.

For example another review, more games tested :)



GN also, knew exactly which games they will pick, as per Intel's instructions. (yes they exist hence many reviewers said that they don't follow Intel's advice on how to do the tests)
There was no Tomb Raider for example, a game very common the last year on benchmarks, why?

Also European sites, getting their CPUs from 3rd parties to test, not ES modules directly from Intel, show a completely different picture.

On top. Do not trust the current 8700K benchmarks. We have no idea what sort of golden chips were on the first batch and on reviewers systems.
Why I say that?

Intel covering up their bottoms, only promise now 1 core to hit 4.7Ghz. The rest even if they can work at 4Ghz or less, doesn't matter. Is not their problem, because legally they cheat nobody....


http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/in...close-multi-core-turbo-boost-frequencies.html

And knowing Inte's shadow tactics over the years, I foresee some funny threads popping that performance isn't what expected, and cores are running at low speeds.....
Click to expand...

Your post comes off a bit conspiracy theory and you are also just cherry picking the results you want.

It's almost a waste of time debating review benchmarks as people who hate or love one manufacturer will just look for the results they want. You basically have nothing to back up your claims as I have nothing to back up mine as I have not used all of this hardware. It's all just numbers and they vary so much across the reviews.
 
Panos said:
First Guru3d is Dutch website, and got their retail CPU from 3rd party supplier. Not a golden chip from Intel directly like the US reviewers.
Second, their benchmarks shows that a with a GTX1080 at 1920X1080 the field is levelled. You need GTX1080Ti to see any differences. However you will agree, buying a £750 GPU for 1080p gaming, is stupid, yes?
If you say no, maybe you should call the Nvidia marketing team they post lies, that the GTX1080Ti is a 4K gaming card, and is truly a 1080p card only, while on higher resolutions it bottlenecks the system.....

Also, how about the rest of the plebs using GTX1070 or lesser cards at 1080p? They ain't going to see any benefit with the new 8th series Intel, and ain't worth to pay for it, when there are alternative products for far less money.
Click to expand...

Again it's all conspiracy theory about who did what and to who.

There are reviews that show a GTX1080 operating much better on a 7700k as opposed to competitors 4 cores. Hardware Unboxed did a review on this very thing recently and even showed a 1070 giving better frames on a 7700k as opposed to an overclocked competitor while the 7700k was at stock. It's another myth that you need a 1080ti. You don't. Even if it was the case the 7700/8700k is still the fastest gaming CPU by some margin and I imagine it will only look better with something like Volta.
 
DragonQ said:
Not all Ryzen chips can do 4.0 GHz to begin with. 3.9 GHz is a more reasonable goal, but yeah with the stock cooler you're looking at 3.7-3.8 GHz max probably. Still, not bad for a stock cooler!
Click to expand...


Not that I have read much at all about Ryzen but does the 4Ghz "barrier" tend to apply to the 1800X as well, regardless of that CPU's price difference....?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom