-
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
I prefer the look of my 1700 RGB cooler, but yes exciting times 4.3GHz max boost. Look forward to OC results, would be great to see 4.5GHz. Maybe, maybe not.
I plan to hang onto the 1700 for a while yet though.
I plan to hang onto the 1700 for a while yet though.
Soldato
all true
I'm too old to make jokes
P.S
I have no games installed
I test with 3dmark, heaven ungine etc etc ..
I think these are the most credible of all the "leaks" we have seen so far. In all honesty i think that 2700x has a way to go yet before you hit a vcore wall.
Caporegime
Yeah 1.3v, still 0.120v to go, it seemed to be running 1.42v at stock.
Caporegime
@LOLN1 is this happening? 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,012
Guys, is the 4.3Ghz boost on the 2700X going to be for all cores when under load? Or is it single core like the Intel chips? I'm hoping it's for all!
Caporegime
Don't know yet.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,012
Ok thanks, be exciting to find out!! What did the 1600X do? I know the turbo algorithm has been updated with these new models.
If you can confirm what it is @LOLN1 later man then that would be great. Be really really nice to have a great boosting cpu that boosts high and you can leave at stock for full stability
If you can confirm what it is @LOLN1 later man then that would be great. Be really really nice to have a great boosting cpu that boosts high and you can leave at stock for full stability
Caporegime
3.6Ghz
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,012
Right, thanks. Be a hell of an increase if they could do it! Probably asking a bit much though.
Soldato
Marketing always blow things up to be a lot better than you expect. It'll be single core at 4.35 otherwise it would already have been leaked "all core boost 4.35".
I'm just living in hope that it can be overclocked to comfortably sit at around 4.2Ghz across all cores.
I'm just living in hope that it can be overclocked to comfortably sit at around 4.2Ghz across all cores.
Soldato
LOLN1, as you're clearly under cover but breaking NDA. When's NDA up/off?
Erm didn't Canard PC show this? You even posted the screenshot at least once. All core turbo is 3.9 GHz IIRC. 4.35 GHz is single core turbo.
By the way if meltdown mitigation is "valued", my view may shift to AMD given its immune to meltdown.
If I install the meltdown patch on my laptop it takes 8 seconds to open task manager first time after a bootup, vs a fraction of a second without the patch (broadwell i3). I also get random kernel locking issues causing things to hang.
On my desktop (coffee lake i5) both the above issues dont occur, but the system is laggier in heavy kernel lock situations, e.g. starting chrome uses a crap ton of kernel calls if a lot of tabs, and it takes twice as long to start if meltdown mitigation is enabled, I get visible stutters in games that vanish if I disable the mitigation, and steam even noticeably takes longer to start, it feels like I cancel my recent hardware upgrade with some on top, so needless to say I have removed the mitigation on my desktop. I dread to think how bad things are if spectre is mitigated as well.
In the server space intel is facing a torrid time, some workloads have doubling of cpu usage when meltdown+spectre is mitigated, this is compulsory on the likes of amazon EC2 as amazon patch it on the host. Microsoft know its really bad in the server space which is why windows server OS disabled the mitigation by default. So I think in server land AMD could be making some big gains in the short term until intel sort themselves out.
So I am no intel fanboy, just my earlier comments relate to what type of performance I value from a CPU for my type of workload. Luckily I dont consider meltdown and especially spectre as a serious threat as my systems are locked down to make it hard for the rogue code to even get a chance to run on my systems so I dont mine keeping those mitigation's away from my desktop, but obviously the story could change at any given moment.
If I install the meltdown patch on my laptop it takes 8 seconds to open task manager first time after a bootup, vs a fraction of a second without the patch (broadwell i3). I also get random kernel locking issues causing things to hang.
On my desktop (coffee lake i5) both the above issues dont occur, but the system is laggier in heavy kernel lock situations, e.g. starting chrome uses a crap ton of kernel calls if a lot of tabs, and it takes twice as long to start if meltdown mitigation is enabled, I get visible stutters in games that vanish if I disable the mitigation, and steam even noticeably takes longer to start, it feels like I cancel my recent hardware upgrade with some on top, so needless to say I have removed the mitigation on my desktop. I dread to think how bad things are if spectre is mitigated as well.
In the server space intel is facing a torrid time, some workloads have doubling of cpu usage when meltdown+spectre is mitigated, this is compulsory on the likes of amazon EC2 as amazon patch it on the host. Microsoft know its really bad in the server space which is why windows server OS disabled the mitigation by default. So I think in server land AMD could be making some big gains in the short term until intel sort themselves out.
So I am no intel fanboy, just my earlier comments relate to what type of performance I value from a CPU for my type of workload. Luckily I dont consider meltdown and especially spectre as a serious threat as my systems are locked down to make it hard for the rogue code to even get a chance to run on my systems so I dont mine keeping those mitigation's away from my desktop, but obviously the story could change at any given moment.
Caporegime
On an A320 board, they said it was "cheating" and the performance was "5 to 8% higher on the X470 Board" so who knows what it was doing on that board.
So no, we don't know.