SighTurtle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2016
- Messages
- 1,410
Someone from reddit has a 2600 already. Stable at 4.0 crashes at 4.2.
Link?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Someone from reddit has a 2600 already. Stable at 4.0 crashes at 4.2.
1. CanardPC has no credibility so what Canard claims is irrelevant.
2. AsRock said right on its website that the AsRock A320M HDV (which is the motherboard that CanardPC used) only support up to 65W processors.
1. They are a respectable magazine. Moreover, Canard gets that 2700X is 3.4% faster than 1800X @1440p and AMD gets that 2700X is 5% faster than 1800X #@1080p. So the performance measured by Canard agrees with internal measurements made by AMD.
2. In their review the 1800X was a bit faster than the 8700k and the 2700X was 77% faster than the 1500X. Not bad for using a mobo that doesn't support the 1800x and the 2700X according to you and others. Of course, they didn't use a mobo limited to 65W chips. It is obvious.
Do you mean that A320 mobo that I mentioned above and that gives only 1.6%, 1.7%, 0.2%,... lower performance for the 1800X when compared to the fastest X370 mobo? Not bad for a board that only supports 65W chips according to you and others here. ROFL
CPC measured performance of 2000-series chips on different mobos and claims the difference between using A320 and X370/470 is only 1--2% on stock settings. Overclocking in France claims the same. And the above review of 24 mobos proves about the same for the 1800X.
So Joe Blow can pair the 2700X with a X370/470 motherboard, but the stock performance will be only 1--2% higher than the performance reported in the CPC magazine. If Joe plans to overclock, then he will see 5--8% higher performance when using one of the top mobos.
Your excuse about performance has been debunked with data from three different sources, and your claim that A320 mobos only support 65W CPUs is untrue.
So 4.0 stable oc, looks like on stock cooler? That's pretty good, 3.75 to 3.8 was max on stock cooling on gen 1 zen.
It looks like: Ryzen 7 2700X ~ Core i7-7820X
CanardPC is "respectable" in the same way that the National Inquirer is respectable.
You should open the dictionary and look up what the word "canard" means.
The motherboard (AsRock A320M-HDV) is on the front cover of the magazine.
I guess it would have been easier to just include the results from the x370 and the x470 and the b350 and the b450 motherboards they totally tested when the published the article. Since they had the testing totally done, they could have used REAL numbers to show the differences and the ever present automatic omnipresent cheats that those evil boards produce instead of a small quip in a sentence about 'there is a 1% or 2% difference' (I'm assuming they should put "we guess" in there as well.) Maybe they could just amend their article to actually show these differences but I guess they would need actual numbers to do that with. Well pretty soon, we shall have those numbers from other websites and maybe CanardPC could just steal those numbers when they become available.
So you ignored all performance arguments that I gave you, and also the content of the review, including the power and clock measurements.
It is a print magazine. There are space limitations.
So stock 2700x is about 9.9% faster than 1800X, which agrees with the 8.7% found by Canard when we subtract the 1--2% extra by using X370/470 mobos.
hell AMD was supposed to be 14nm to 7nm and all of a sudden TSMC/GF etc decided to "tweak" their respective 16nm/14nm and call it + version instead maybe in preparation for 10nm, 7nm or whatever to work out potential kinks for wafer yield, production amounts they want/need from the machinery etc.
It's like somebody claiming that she would have finished her lap 5% faster, but she was wearing the wrong type of shoes.
The only way to know for sure is for her to change her shoes and run another lap.
Right now, all I have is her claim and her claim doesn't count.
We have now CPC review
the claims by overclocking made in France, the AMD internal measurements
Calling it a "review" is a joke.
No reputable source would test a 105W processor on a motherboard that only support processors up to 65W and call it a "review".
You can analyze the "results" all you want, but the methodology is wrong so the "results" are automatically invalided.
sources?
Yep this is the equivalent of testing a b-360 cheapo with an 8700 before using xtu software:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1603-intel-b360-chipset/
The average CB run was just 1160 points! Compare that to the 1400 point average on other 8700 when not applying mcu.
Sorry, but I will wait for the real reviews with respectable motherboards in regards to Ryzen+ overclocking.
Don't get so worked up over this the only reason those people keep posting their message is they thrive on posting things that are far from the truth and get a lot of people worked up over it.You would think that there wouldn't be a PC hardware magazine that is stupid enough to try this when ASRock literally said (quote): Supports 65W Ryzen CPUs Only!
ASRock probably idiot-proof the motherboard so that it would forced the processor to run at 65W.
Calling it a "review" is a joke.
No reputable source would test a 105W processor on a motherboard that only support processors up to 65W and call it a "review".
You can analyze the "results" all you want, but the methodology is wrong so the "results" are automatically invalided.
sources?
So according to El chapuzas, the 2700X is 8% faster than 1700X on Wprime MT, 12.8% faster in CB15, and 11.6% faster in x264. The average is about 11%.
According to the CPC review the 2700X was 13.6% faster than the 1700X in MT.
13.6% > 11%
And el chapuzas used a top X370 mobo.
See, and there isn't all the questions about this or that, they tested on a motherboard that doesn't put a 10% negative impact on the CPU. If CPC just did this they wouldn't have all the questions, about their testing standards. Also isn't that higher than the jump from 6700 to 7700 though?
So Ryzen 7 2700X ~ Core i7-7820X
AMD basically went from Broadwell => Skylake with a minor update.
That’s not bad at all.
So Ryzen 7 2700X ~ Core i7-7820X
AMD basically went from Broadwell => Skylake with a minor update.
That’s not bad at all.
All depends on the yeilds since they still have to bin for threadripper.I wonder if the X based models are going to be more heavily binned than last time around. Only basing this off of the fact that a few non-X buyers are reporting 4ghz max overclocks while the 2700X owners seem to be able to to hit 4.3 with enough (probably unsafe) voltage.
My Ryzen 1700 is only good to 3.5GHz under water. At 3.7GHz weird shit starts happening with my desktop like I will launch a program and it instantly closes. This behavior leads to eventual lockups after the system has been live for a week or more. I'd buy a binned chip if I had to do it over again.
Not to debate your decision to wait, but how is the new system going to cost the same or more importantly, LESS?I came ever so close to getting things together for a 1600X system, but held off, since this is supposed to be around the corner, and would cost about the same, if not less.