-
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
Soldato
Different CPU, different cooler - uses some algorithm to make assumption that 1700 can do 4.0ghz on stock cooler.
Logic
Logic
Permabanned
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. 
Soldato
If love to see a 1700 at 4.0 on the stock cooler.
Permabanned
Im gonna do see what voltage I need for 4.....
Soldato
Not disputing the stock cooler isn't very good but these claims get wilder by day!
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.
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:
Permabanned
1.41v at the mo, past a couple of cinebench runs so far. (Not a proper test but good for a quick check)
Permabanned
Nah, not stable. So going to need at least 1.42+ for 4 in my case.
Permabanned
Though 1782 is highest I had in Cinebench so far.
Very soon Engineering Samples should pop up as well and give is a real clue about what exactly is to come.
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.....
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.
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.
Soldato
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....?
The best 5% of the chips go into the Ryzen Threadripper. All other 95% are not top bin.