• 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" ?

LOLN1 said:
This is the problem
the frequency does not go beyond 3450 mhz


I thank Gibbo, it allows me to put my tests
thanks also to the staff of ocuk
sorry if sometimes I write incorrectly
P.S Maybe in the afternoon arrives other cpu 2700x
My cpu is not the one used by the Spanish reviewer
Click to expand...

If you run your overclock as an all core overclock, that score will shoot up. By the looks of things you have the bios set to just boost the cpu, that's probably why you are only seeing the cpu speed at 3.45Ghz.
 
https://forums.overclockers.ru/view...sid=557831cd7e31b6251ade0aa48170cef4&start=40

I want to fix all the results and readings "out of the box" first, then I'll experiment.

Now Sinbench was banished from the Hvinfos. With a multithreaded load, the frequency was 4 GHz, the voltage was on the order of 1.21, when it was single-threaded it was 4.2 GHz and the voltage was about 1.46.

I did not really watch vcore, but cpu core voltage
Click to expand...
cinebenchr15_ryzen2700x_Box.jpg
 
kitfit1 said:
If you run your overclock as an all core overclock, that score will shoot up. By the looks of things you have the bios set to just boost the cpu, that's probably why you are only seeing the cpu speed at 3.45Ghz.
Click to expand...
okay
This test is default
But the frequency should have some moments at 4100mhz (boost)
but I have not seen
The score is too low
This does not happen I suppose we need bios updates or new Amd drivers
As soon as I get new 2700x I try again to default
 
Zeed said:
Its the amd dream/hype/hope one cause when u are AMD fab what else u got... :(
Click to expand...
nothing i've got the chips but obviously i can't talk about them. NDA's and all that.

I don't think it's a breach of nda to say it's what i expected and it's positive imo.

People thinking that AMD can just smash intel from the throne over night were mistaken this is a positive annual improvement. It may seem small to you or not enough but it's essentially the same chip as before this is like comparing a 6700k with a 7700k, If they keep this up they will win some of that mindshare intel have built up which is vastly more important to AMD's long term plans.

The naming scheme is a bit off as it's not Zen 2.0 it's Zen + but they've gone with 2XXX
 
TwsT said:
nothing i've got the chips but obviously i can't talk about them. NDA's and all that.

I don't think it's a breach of nda to say it's what i expected and it's positive imo.

People thinking that AMD can just smash intel from the throne over night were mistaken this is a positive annual improvement. It may seem small to you or not enough but it's essentially the same chip as before this is like comparing a 6700k with a 7700k, If they keep this up they will win some of that mindshare intel have built up which is vastly more important to AMD's long term plans.

The naming scheme is a bit off as it's not Zen 2.0 it's Zen + but they've gone with 2XXX
Click to expand...
I've not got the bottle to delid the 7900X and fed up with the temps. Would you say the 2700X is a good replacement?
 
TwsT said:
nothing i've got the chips but obviously i can't talk about them. NDA's and all that.

I don't think it's a breach of nda to say it's what i expected and it's positive imo.

People thinking that AMD can just smash intel from the throne over night were mistaken this is a positive annual improvement. It may seem small to you or not enough but it's essentially the same chip as before this is like comparing a 6700k with a 7700k, If they keep this up they will win some of that mindshare intel have built up which is vastly more important to AMD's long term plans.

The naming scheme is a bit off as it's not Zen 2.0 it's Zen + but they've gone with 2XXX
Click to expand...
Ye i dont think Naming is good move. Makes meople EXPECT MORE

could have went with 1650 1650x 1750 1750x . I think that would make it better but thats My opinion.

Usualy version 2 provides sensible LEAP not tweek that we see here.
 
TwsT said:
nothing i've got the chips but obviously i can't talk about them. NDA's and all that.

I don't think it's a breach of nda to say it's what i expected and it's positive imo.

People thinking that AMD can just smash intel from the throne over night were mistaken this is a positive annual improvement. It may seem small to you or not enough but it's essentially the same chip as before this is like comparing a 6700k with a 7700k, If they keep this up they will win some of that mindshare intel have built up which is vastly more important to AMD's long term plans.

The naming scheme is a bit off as it's not Zen 2.0 it's Zen + but they've gone with 2XXX
Click to expand...

Would you be in breach of the NDA to tell us when the real reviews are out?
 
Zeed said:
Ye i dont think Naming is good move. Makes meople EXPECT MORE

could have went with 1650 1650x 1750 1750x . I think that would make it better but thats My opinion.

Usualy version 2 provides sensible LEAP not tweek that we see here.
Click to expand...

Did you feel the same way on 6xxx vs 7xxx series?

Chinebench ST
6700k 181
7700k 193

1800X 159
2700X 178 Only working 4,2Ghz on single with B350, not 4,35 wich its supposed to.
 
humbug said:
Ah ok, thanks @TwsT



That's higher than expected, 178 @ 4.2Ghz, i thought that was a 4.35Ghz

6700K / 7700K / 8700K they all have the same IPC, 178 @ 4.2Ghz, do the maths, if that's true Intel no longer have a single core IPC advantage worth mentioning.

I'll reserve judgement :)
Click to expand...

This launch is pretty much confirmed to have nil IPC improvements. Whatever difference exists between the Zen 1 and Coffeelake will still exist, it's not exactly a massive difference, AMD's problem has been the low clocks, solve that and the ~10% difference or whatever it is currently is pretty much irrelevant given the extra 2 cores for the price.
 
Martini1991 said:
This launch is pretty much confirmed to have nil IPC improvements. Whatever difference exists between the Zen 1 and Coffeelake will still exist, it's not exactly a massive difference, AMD's problem has been the low clocks, solve that and the ~10% difference or whatever it is currently is pretty much irrelevant given the extra 2 cores for the price.
Click to expand...

Right, its 8% Ryzen to Coffeelake single core, so 3% can make a significant difference.

I'm holding judgment but too me the score looks a little higher than the clock speed difference, i could do the maths if i can be bothered but i don't want to upset anyone :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom