Ryzen "2" ?

Zeed · 2 Apr 2018 at 16:45

humbug said:
1948 points Cinebench is a pretty good score. its 9 or 10% higher than the 1800X at 4.1Ghz.

Just a little more would crack 2000 points.

Thats slow compared to what i got :] Full stable hours of rndering prime memtests ect
max tuned 3950/4000

You still dont know Ryzen is all about Memory timings balance mgz ect lol

humbug · 2 Apr 2018 at 16:55

Zeed said:
Thats slow compared to what i got :] Full stable hours of rndering prime memtests ect
max tuned 3950/4000

Interesting, i did spend a little time looking for those mainstream reviewers with OC Cinebench results and KitGuru had the highest score i could find, OC3D.net had 1705 for their overclocked results, it seems reviewers were getting low results.

No golden samples being sent to them....

kitfit1 · 2 Apr 2018 at 16:59

Zeed said:
Thats slow compared to what i got :] Full stable hours of rndering prime memtests ect
max tuned 3950/4000

You still dont know Ryzen is all about Memory timings balance mgz ect lol

As the latter bios's never report the correct CPU speed, i'm guessing your CPU was about 4.2Ghz for that Cinebench run ?

Zeed · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:05

kitfit1 said:
As the latter bios's never report the correct CPU speed, i'm guessing your CPU was about 4.2Ghz for that Cinebench run ?

4.0
sec i run you my 3950 wityh tuned 3333 ram that i use daily.

andy_mk3 · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:06

So I'm trying to work out to myself if the upgrade from my trusty old 2600k is going to be worth it. I just ran CB and got 775 and 159 single core, at 4.6GHz. So seems I should see a good single core speed bump and a huge multi-threaded speed bump, even at a lower clockspeed.

Zeed · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:09

90% of reviewers cant overclock for **** nowadays :]
this is 1000% hci emmtest pass 12 hours prime pass 12 hours blender pass 5 hours realbench pass

just finished rendering for 8 hours for my Youtube from Gatecrasher last night

kitfit1 · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:15

Zeed said:
90% of reviewers cant overclock for **** nowadays :]

Nah.......................i'd put it nearer to 99% to be honest. They don't even bother to do all core clocks to the max and ram is far far too complex and time consuming for them to bother there very busy heads with.

Zeed · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:18

kitfit1 said:
Nah.......................i'd put it nearer to 99% to be honest. They don't even bother to do all core clocks to the max and ram is far far too complex and time consuming for them to bother there very busy heads with.

Yup and theirs pathetic stability testing lol. All ryzens do 4ghz... ye right in 1 pass cb 15 maybe or some game. Try rendering something for whole night

considering ordering 2700 from amazon or something to play around for a week see how it is and send it back

humbug · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:18

andy_mk3 said:
So I'm trying to work out to myself if the upgrade from my trusty old 2600k is going to be worth it. I just ran CB and got 775 and 159 single core, at 4.6GHz. So seems I should see a good single core speed bump and a huge multi-threaded speed bump, even at a lower clockspeed.

I upgraded from a 4.5Ghz 4690K to the 1600 you see in my signature, not a single game i play has lower performance, not all are higher performance but others are, i also find the frame rates more consistent, Ryzen doesn't seem to be able to push 300/400+ FPS, its nothing to do with IPC or clock speed, maybe its architectural it just doesn't seem to want to do that, unlike the 4690K when able to, what it does do much better than the 4690K is keep the frame rates up, Ryzen doesn't have these dips into lower frame rates when stressed like the 4690K did.

For pretty much anything productivity it utterly humiliates the 4690K, double its performance.

Zeed · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:23

humbug said:
I upgraded from a 4.5Ghz 4690K to the 1600 you see in my signature, not a single game i play has lower performance, not all are higher performance but others are, i also find the frame rates more consistent, Ryzen doesn't seem to be able to push 300/400+ FPS, its nothing to do with IPC or clock speed, maybe its architectural it just doesn't seem to want to do that, unlike the 4690K when able to, what it does do much better than the 4690K is keep the frame rates up, Ryzen doesn't have these dips into lower frame rates when stressed like the 4690K did.

For pretty much anything productivity it utterly humiliates the 4690K, double its performance.

for gaming my 5820k was hands down faster at 4.45 than my ryzen is. Scored 10 more in st in cinebench. And my 5820k was crap clocker and could not do more than 2666 on DDR4 !!!
My ST score is 166 btw

so

Cinebench: 2700X
MT: 1948 @ 4.3Ghz (+9.3%)
ST: 178 @ 4.3Ghz (+6.6%)

Its on pair ST with 5820k

Saying tht 5960X is still faster than Zen+ when both overclocked /thread

humbug · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:27

humbug said:
I upgraded from a 4.5Ghz 4690K to the 1600 you see in my signature, not a single game i play has lower performance, not all are higher performance but others are, i also find the frame rates more consistent, Ryzen doesn't seem to be able to push 300/400+ FPS, its nothing to do with IPC or clock speed, maybe its architectural it just doesn't seem to want to do that, unlike the 4690K when able to, what it does do much better than the 4690K is keep the frame rates up, Ryzen doesn't have these dips into lower frame rates when stressed like the 4690K did.

For pretty much anything productivity it utterly humiliates the 4690K, double its performance.

Also, Ryzen always being slower in older games cuz low threaded performance is a myth, i'm not saying one or the other is universally true, as i said not every game the 1600 is faster than the 1600, but....

here's an old game. borrowed from a gaming IPC comparison.

4690K @ 4.5Ghz

And Ryzen 1600 @ 3.9Ghz, 18% higher minimums.

~>Dg<~ · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:28

5820k will be faster in games overclocked.

humbug · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:31

I edited that, i just realized the ones i posted are actually the 4.5Ghz 4690K vs Ryzen 1600 @ 3.9Ghz comparison, 18% higher minimums to Ryzen despite the huge clock speed deficit.

The clock speeds are in the OSD.

Zeed · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:33

humbug said:
I edited that, i just realized the ones i posted are actually the 4.5Ghz 4690K vs Ryzen 1600 @ 3.9Ghz comparison, 18% higher minimums to Ryzen despite the huge clock speed deficit.

The clock speeds are in the OSD.

You are comparing 4 cores 4 threads vs 6 cores/12 threads mate....

Zeed · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:35

~>Dg<~ said:
5820k will be faster in games overclocked.

with much cheaper memory !!! Im running 230 pound memory kit atm. My 5820k was on cheap hynix 2400 kit !!!

DragonQ · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:37

~>Dg<~ said:
5820k will be faster in games overclocked.

Yep, but it costs more.

Zeed said:
You are comparing 4 cores 4 threads vs 6 cores/12 threads mate....

Yep, but the 4c/4t cost more.

humbug · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:38

Zeed said:
You are comparing 4 cores 4 threads vs 6 cores/12 threads mate....

For new games i could understand that argument, but i thought old games, 6 year old games don't use more than 4 cores?

kitfit1 · 2 Apr 2018 at 17:58

humbug said:
Also, Ryzen always being slower in older games cuz low threaded performance is a myth, i'm not saying one or the other is universally true, as i said not every game the 1600 is faster than the 1600, but....

here's an old game. borrowed from a gaming IPC comparison.

4690K @ 4.5Ghz

And Ryzen 1600 @ 3.9Ghz, 18% higher minimums.

@humbug, can you do us all a favour ? Stop just pulling other peeps benchies off of the net.
If you want to back up something you have to say, back it up with your own experience and benchies. If you have none of your own to back something up................................then perhaps think about actually doing something about it ? Because if you don't, when something really important comes up, no one is ever going to take you seriously.
It's all well and good to make a buying decision from bench sites, you already have Ryzen..........................bench your own stuff, don't nick it off the net. As we already know and have said for months and months on end, all these benching sites have no idea how to clock properly and certainly have no idea how to clock ram.................why should anyone with half a brain take any notice of there results ?

humbug · 2 Apr 2018 at 18:14

kitfit1 said:
@humbug, can you do us all a favour ? Stop just pulling other peeps benchies off of the net.
If you want to back up something you have to say, back it up with your own experience and benchies. If you have none of your own to back something up................................then perhaps think about actually doing something about it ? Because if you don't, when something really important comes up, no one is ever going to take you seriously.
It's all well and good to make a buying decision from bench sites, you already have Ryzen..........................bench your own stuff, don't nick it off the net. As we already know and have said for months and months on end, all these benching sites have no idea how to clock properly and certainly have no idea how to clock ram.................why should anyone with half a brain take any notice of there results ?

They are not "other peoples benches" they are "my own"

I made those benchmark before i disassembled my 4690K rig and ran them again on the Ryzen rig once i installed that.

I speak from "my own experience"

kitfit1 · 2 Apr 2018 at 18:31

humbug said:
They are not "other peoples benches" they are "my own"

I made those benchmark before i disassembled my 4690K rig and ran them again on the Ryzen rig once i installed that.

I speak from "my own experience"

Ok. Tineye and google Reverse image say otherwise. But let's assume they are yours because you could have posted elsewhere. I know a lot of images you have posted are off of the net.................................please stop doing it yes ? This is serious stuff going on here, it dosn't need to be clouded by anything other than real experiencees and real benchies that we do ourselves. Not half backed crap from some bench site that knows nothing from nothing.