Ryzen "2" ?

[humbug]

An 1800X does not boost all cores at 4.1ghz. I'm not sure why you wrote an essay but it is as simple as that

If the 2700X runs all cores at 4.35ghz as a result of the motherboard, that is exactly the same as MCE where the 8700K runs at 4.7ghz.

Canard PC are not mistaking all core boost for MCE. You can even see them plot a curve for you. 3.9ghz is the all core boost.

I know you like to dismiss anything that appears not to fit with your inflated view of Ryzen+, but I hope you've seen that on the last set of leaks which most sensible people would say were real, did turn out to be correct.

Christ you didn't even read what i said before ranting back at me, or you fail to grasp it, actually read what i said and you will find what i said fits and agrees with that chart you randomly posted, it accounts for the 12% total performance difference when using the 400 series boards CanardPC themselves said.

Thank you for reinforcing my argument, i couldn't be bothered to find that chart myself.

That's quite clearly wrong, even the 1800X does not stick to its 3.6Ghz base clock, it also boost all of its cores to 3.7Ghz, my Ryzen 1600 does the same thing, it has an all core boost of 3.4Ghz from a base clock of 3.2Ghz and thats exactly what it does.

The argument that its right when Intel have an all core boost but AMD having the same function is illegal boosting, "cheating" ridiculous....

CanardPC used mostly old games launched long before ryzen even existed, obscure games the chances are AMD have not optimized for, with a vast potpourri of brilliant modern games why would they do that? why would you use a collection of such obviously Intel slanted games?

I think CanardPC don't quite believe that Ryzen has caught Intel's finest gaming CPU up quite so much, so much as to reduce it to little more than margin of error differences even with such Intel slanted benchmarks, so they look for something that could fit their preconceived narrative that something IS wrong and they think they found it in the B/X 400 series motherboards, running the CPU's core above the 3.7Ghz base clock is "cheating". and knowing about Asus's MCE they probably believe it, so much that they can't see the 8700K base clock is also 3.7Ghz, not 4.3Ghz which is what it actually runs at when the cooling is good enough.

I'll put it this way:

In their review: Ryzen 1800X is running 2666Mhz RAM, 2700X 2933Mhz, the gaming performance difference is 3.4%, that accounts for the difference in Ram speed, its bang on if they are running the same 3.7Ghz CPU clocks.
The difference between 3.7Ghz and 4.35Ghz is 17%, they say the gaming performance on B/X400 series boards is <8%... again now THAT accounts for the clock speed difference.

CanardPC are fooled by their own disbelief.

 

[humbug]

Edit, you really didn't read it, i said the 1800X boost its cores from 3.6Ghz to 3.7Ghz, not 4.1Ghz that's XFR.

Just read it, please.

 

[muon]

Edit, you really didn't read it, i said the 1800X boost its cores from 3.6Ghz to 3.7Ghz, not 4.1Ghz that's XFR.

Just read it, please.

You rambled on about CanardPC mistaking all core boost for MCE. But okay whatever. Now you are talking about smaller boosts backtracking.

 

[Jono8]

I think CanardPC don't quite believe that Ryzen has caught Intel's finest gaming CPU up quite so much, so much as to reduce it to little more than margin of error differences even with such Intel slanted benchmarks, so they look for something that could fit their preconceived narrative that something IS wrong and they think they found it in the B/X 400 series motherboards, running the CPU's core above the 3.7Ghz base clock is "cheating". and knowing about Asus's MCE they probably believe it, so much that they can't see the 8700K base clock is also 3.7Ghz, not 4.3Ghz which is what it actually runs at when the cooling is good enough.

They haven't said running it above the base clock is cheating, just like the 8700k running at 4.3ghz all cores isn't "cheating". What they are deeming as "cheating" is when some motherboards auto overclock so that the cpus do their max single core clock on all cores ( ie MCE makes a 8700k run at 4.7ghz on all cores instead of 4.3ghz, and seemingly the x470 auto overclocks the 2700x to 4.35ghz on all cores). That is what Canard are getting at.

 

[humbug]

You rambled on about CanardPC mistaking all core boost for MCE. But okay whatever. Now you are talking about smaller boosts backtracking.

Its not back tracking, the whole thing falls into place if CanardPC are discounting Ryzen 2### designed all core boosting as "cheating" illegal overclocking like the Asus motherboard MCE kicking the 8700K to 4.7Ghz from 4.3Ghz.

They haven't said running it above the base clock is cheating, just like the 8700k running at 4.3ghz all core isnt. What they are deeming as cheating is some motherboards auto overclocking so that these cpus do their max single core clock on all cores ( ie MCE makes a 8700k run at 4.7ghz on all cores instead of 4.3ghx)

ok, if we were to ignore this.

In their review: Ryzen 1800X is running 2666Mhz RAM, 2700X 2933Mhz, the gaming performance difference is 3.4%, that accounts for the difference in Ram speed, its bang on if they are running the same 3.7Ghz CPU clocks.
The difference between 3.7Ghz and 4.35Ghz is 17%, they say the gaming performance on B/X400 series boards is <8%... again now THAT accounts for the clock speed difference.

Then we need to assume CanardPC got +3,4% gaming performance from the 2666Mhz vs 2933Mhz ram speed and the <4.35Ghz all core boosting (+17%) clocks... no, but for the sake of argument let us assume that.

So, when they say they get <8% extra gaming performance from using the 400 series motherboards, and they claim those motherboard are MCE stile overclocking what would those clocks be to achieve +8% gaming performance? well 4.35Ghz +8% is 4.7Ghz, but wait..... they only got 3.4% from a 17% higher clock, so what must the clocks actually be in order to achieve twice that? you would double the 17% for scaling, so 4.35Ghz + 2x 17% = 32% = 5.75Ghz....

Please think about this

 

[muon]

That seems really odd.

The 8700K has an advertised clock of 3.7Ghz, its Multi Core Boost is 4.3Ghz, that in reality is what its running at, some high end boards like Asus had Multi Core Enhancement running them at 4.7Ghz

So WTF are CanardPC on about? if they are claiming Ryzen 2800X has a Multi Core Boost of 4.35Ghz but is also Multi Core Enhancement overclocking its self by ~8% then what they are saying is on the B450 and X470 boards its running at 4.7Ghz.

Wouldn't that be nice? or do they just think the 4.35Ghz Multi Core boost is Multi Core Enhancement and shouldn't be doing that?

I think CanardPC are confused because i cannot see these CPU's running all core 4.7Ghz.

I'll just leave this here.

 

[humbug]

You too @muon read the post above you, actually read it it should make sense to you if you look at it objectively.

 

[Jono8]

Its not back tracking, the whole thing falls into place if CanardPC are discounting Ryzen 2### designed all core boosting as "cheating" illegal overclocking like the Asus motherboard MCE kicking the 8700K to 4.7Ghz from 4.3Ghz.



ok, if we were to ignore this.



Then we need to assume CanardPC got +3,4% gaming performance from the 2666Mhz vs 2933Mhz ram speed and the <4.35Ghz all core boosting (+17%) clocks... no, but for the sake of argument let us assume that.

So, when they say they get <8% extra gaming performance from using the 400 series motherboards, and they claim those motherboard are MCE stile overclocking what would those clocks be to achieve +8% gaming performance? well 4.35Ghz +8% is 4.7Ghz, but wait..... they only got 3.4% from a 17% higher clock, so what must the clocks actually be in order to achieve twice that? you would double the 17% for scaling, so 4.35Ghz + 2x 17% = 32% = 5.75Ghz....

Please think about this

What are going on about it? You seem confused.

They have simply said auto overclocking was enabled on the X470 boards (presumably something similar to the MCE for coffee lake on some boards). They haven't at any point said that rated all core boost are "cheating".

 

[BongoHunter]

All this thread doing for me now is reinforcing that we need to see these chips released and in the hands of enthusiasts with retail boards and possibly a BIOS update before any real conclusions can be drawn.

 

[muon]

You too @muon read the post above you, actually read it it should make sense to you if you look at it objectively.

The 5-8% simply refers to the non-linear performance scaling that occurs when going from 3.9 on all cores (might be 3.95/4.0 with XFR as their graph excludes it, e.g. 4.3 instead of 4.35 for single core) to 4.3/4.35 on all cores.

All this thread doing for me now is reinforcing that we need to see these chips released and in the hands of enthusiasts with retail boards and possibly a BIOS update before any real conclusions can be drawn.

It's actually just a single poster dismissing all these leaks.

 

[gavinh87]

Another poor AMD rant from humbug.
Give it a rest mate. Nobody, not even AMD care that you are fighting their corner

 

[Jono8]

The 5-8% simply refers to the non-linear performance scaling that occurs when going from 3.9 (might be 3.95/4.0 with XFR as their graph excludes it, e.g. 4.3 instead of 4.35 for single core) to 4.3/4.35..

This

 

[muon]

Another poor AMD rant from humbug.
Give it a rest mate. Nobody, not even AMD care that you are fighting their corner

I actually think the results are actually quite good as well. Potentially quite promising when it comes to overclocks.

The 8700K overclocked in gaming won't be beat though.

 

[humbug]

Ok, looks this is now so disjointed no one actually knows what they said, apart from me, so here is what i'm going to do, i'm going to put everything they did say into one post. the next post.

 

[Jono8]

I actually think the results are actually quite good as well. Potentially quite promising when it comes to overclocks.

The 8700K overclocked in gaming won't be beat though.

Yeh it looks good for AMD. If they can get these sorts of clocks on all cores on this process, imagine what they might manage on the new process with Zen 2/Ryzen 3.

 

[muon]

Ok, looks this is now so disjointed no one actually knows what they said, apart from me, so here is what i'm going to do, i'm going to put everything they did say into one post. the next post.

Let's just wait for the official release. I've given up at this stage.

 

[jrwagh333]

LOL this forum is too funny

 

[humbug]

The 5-8% simply refers to the non-linear performance scaling that occurs when going from 3.9 on all cores (might be 3.95/4.0 with XFR as their graph excludes it, e.g. 4.3 instead of 4.35 for single core) to 4.3/4.35 on all cores.

Wait a minute, this is along the lines of what i said, you do know their chart shows a 3.4% improvement in games over the 1800X.

Spoiler

And that they used 2666Mhz Ram for the 1800X vs 2933Mhz for the 2700X, as described here https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/87awjz/computerbasede_about_the_canard_pc_review_of_the/ References in the post

You also agree that the 1800X runs an all core boost of 3.7Ghz and the 2700X a base clock of 3.7Ghz, so all that accounts for the 3.4%. Right?

As you just said the 5 to 8% CanardPC claim as they do here.....



Comes from the all core boosting on the X470 boards.

The only thing that remains then, to clear this up, do you then still agree with what CanardPC appear to be saying that the <4.35Ghz all core boosting, like the one chart they put here...

Spoiler

Is illegal Asus MCE stile overclocking, or do you agree with me that its just the Ryzen 2700X doing what the Ryzen 2700X is supposed to do?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

An 1800X does not boost all cores at 4.1ghz. I'm not sure why you wrote an essay but it is as simple as that

If the 2700X runs all cores at 4.35ghz as a result of the motherboard, that is exactly the same as MCE where the 8700K runs at 4.7ghz.

Canard PC are not mistaking all core boost for MCE. You can even see them plot a curve for you. 3.9ghz is the all core boost.

Spoiler

I know you like to dismiss anything that appears not to fit with your inflated view of Ryzen+, but I hope you've seen that on the last set of leaks which most sensible people would say were real, did turn out to be correct.

TBH, I'm kinda impressed with that. If they can replicate that 8.8% average core boost on Threadripper (which will prob be higher if they continue to use cherry picked cores for TR) then I'll be upgrading

 

[humbug]

I take it then from your silence @muon that in fact you do agree with me, the all core boosting is not as CanardPC put it "Cheats enabled all core turbo ecte" but in fact Ryzen 2700X working as intended and there in are wrong to remove the 400 series board results from the review, yes?