Ryzen vs Coffee Lake

OrangeKhrush said:
The chip was a review sample basically like you say with ryzen same thing same clocks. In fact i have the first intel core 2 quad extreme golden sample, please find me any retail part that can beat it and ill give you it, it is 3k worth of vintage

You picked a bunch of polski bloggers, french fries, and sites that were busted for cheating scores with MCE and Ryan Shrout.....kudos.
Click to expand...

Very funny how you think that MCE enabled is cheating scores, still you link to reviews that overclock the interconnect on RyZen chips by 20% or more, and that is not cheating for you. :)

OrangeKhrush said:
index.php


This is the ES Juan is crying so hard about,
Click to expand...

If that was the only ES they test as if was retail...

OrangeKhrush said:
Notice on all of Juanrga's posts how bloated the 8700K scores are. So to sum this up, Juan is crying about guru3D on the ES(reviewers sample) and RAM used but GUru3D posted the lowest Ryzen scores with faster memory.
Click to expand...

As demonstrated before Guru3d obtains higher scores for RyZen chips and slower scores for Intel chips, modifying the IPC gap by 9% compared to rest of reviews.
 
bobzdar said:
Per Wiki (and any other documentation you'll find on overclocking): Overclocking is configuration of computer hardware components to operate faster than certified by the original manufacturer, with "faster" specified as clock frequency in megahertz (MHz) or gigahertz (GHz).

If the part is certified to operate by the manufacturer at a certain speed (which XFR is - manufacturer clock speeds), then it is not overclocking. Period. Belaboring this point because some reviewers that you cherry picked got it wrong proves your lack of knowledge and/or bias. Give it up.
Click to expand...

And precisely what XFR does is to push the system above the standard limits (defined by Precission Boost) when detects enough cooling installed in the system:

Extended Frequency Range (XFR)
Automatic extra performance boost for enthusiasts with premium systems and processor cooling.² ³
  • Permits CPU speeds above and beyond ordinary Precision Boost limits
  • Clockspeed scales with cooling solution: air, water, and LN2
  • Fully automated; no user input required
  • Available on select AMD Ryzen™ processors

FOOTNOTES:

2. AMD’s product warranty does not cover damages caused by overclocking, even when overclocking is enabled via AMD hardware and/or software
Click to expand...

What’s more, for builders who chose premium cooling solutions, AMD’s Extended Frequency Range (XFR) technology will automatically raise clock speeds to take above the rated maximum to take full advantage of the high-performance cooling available.
Click to expand...

AMD-Extended-Frequency-Range.png
 
Last edited:
juanrga said:
And precisely what XFR does is to push the system above the standard limits (defined by Precission Boost) when detects enough cooling installed in the system:





AMD-Extended-Frequency-Range.png
Click to expand...

Right, and nowhere on there does it say it's over clocking. It bases the clocks on workload and thermal headroom, but it is fully automated clocks - stock. Any modification that increases clocks beyond that is overclocking - and indeed, overclocking disables the whole XFR system.
 
bobzdar said:
Right, and nowhere on there does it say it's over clocking. It bases the clocks on workload and thermal headroom, but it is fully automated clocks - stock. Any modification that increases clocks beyond that is overclocking - and indeed, overclocking disables the whole XFR system.
Click to expand...

Pushing clocks above the stock limit is overclocking and XFR push clocks above the "boost limit", when there is extra cooling installed in the system. You even have a graphic illustrating XFR pushing clocks above the boost max (the red line). So XFR is an automatic overclock, as mentioned by the three reviews, and one of the footnotes in AMD site mentions how product warranty does not cover damages caused by overclocking. That XFR is an automatic overclocking is also present in the part where says "Fully automated; no user input required". If XFR was a simple turbo, AMD wouldn't need to add to the description it is completely automated. They emphasizing the automation of the technology, because this is overclocking.

Since XFR is automatic overclocking, it is disabled when manuallly overclocking.
 
My R7 1700 is stock in my system. Under normal use to hovers around 3.0ghz most of the time. If the machine is idle, it downclocks to about 1.5ghz. If I run an intensive task, it will run at a max of 3.7ghz. The CPU never goes above this. According to AMD my CPU has a normal operating speed of 3.0ghz, with an extended range to 3.7ghz. In the bios, I have left all settings stock and have removed my initial overclock because the chip doesn't need to run at 3.8ghz when I'm not on the machine and it's idle, would rather have the machine run slower while idle and XFR accomplishes this for me. Please, explain how this is an overclock, the chip isn't running at anything but stock and it doesn't extend over AMD's specified limit, if fact it often runs way below it?
 
juanrga said:
Very funny how you think that MCE enabled is cheating scores, still you link to reviews that overclock the interconnect on RyZen chips by 20% or more, and that is not cheating for you. :)



If that was the only ES they test as if was retail...



As demonstrated before Guru3d obtains higher scores for RyZen chips and slower scores for Intel chips, modifying the IPC gap by 9% compared to rest of reviews.
Click to expand...

You do know when AMD shipped ryzen packs to reviewers prior to release for reviews they sent ES chips. This is old news and there is no real issue as the sample is essentially the same, just more cherry picked silicon

As for saying they tamper scores on the evidence they posted lower ryzen scores with faster memory.

You can keep telling us what you want to believe, but like santa, the easter bunny, magic ponies, they are fantasies.
 
juanrga said:
Pushing clocks above the stock limit is overclocking and XFR push clocks above the "boost limit", when there is extra cooling installed in the system. You even have a graphic illustrating XFR pushing clocks above the boost max (the red line). So XFR is an automatic overclock, as mentioned by the three reviews, and one of the footnotes in AMD site mentions how product warranty does not cover damages caused by overclocking. That XFR is an automatic overclocking is also present in the part where says "Fully automated; no user input required". If XFR was a simple turbo, AMD wouldn't need to add to the description it is completely automated. They emphasizing the automation of the technology, because this is overclocking.

Since XFR is automatic overclocking, it is disabled when manuallly overclocking.
Click to expand...

NOPE!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
juanrga said:
Pushing clocks above the stock limit is overclocking and XFR push clocks above the "boost limit", when there is extra cooling installed in the system. You even have a graphic illustrating XFR pushing clocks above the boost max (the red line). So XFR is an automatic overclock, as mentioned by the three reviews, and one of the footnotes in AMD site mentions how product warranty does not cover damages caused by overclocking. That XFR is an automatic overclocking is also present in the part where says "Fully automated; no user input required". If XFR was a simple turbo, AMD wouldn't need to add to the description it is completely automated. They emphasizing the automation of the technology, because this is overclocking.

Since XFR is automatic overclocking, it is disabled when manuallly overclocking.
Click to expand...

Except AMD preset max of 200mhz on the caveat of cooling, this is essentially a added boost if cooled, it is also only over 1 core making it really boost 2.0.

MCE overclocks all 6 cores to permanently overclock the system beyond intel spec

Lastly XFR is on the specified models it is controlled by the CPU itself. MCE is a motherboard controlled outcome, making it an overclock by vendor
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
juanrga said:
Pushing clocks above the stock limit is overclocking and XFR push clocks above the "boost limit", when there is extra cooling installed in the system. You even have a graphic illustrating XFR pushing clocks above the boost max (the red line). So XFR is an automatic overclock, as mentioned by the three reviews, and one of the footnotes in AMD site mentions how product warranty does not cover damages caused by overclocking. That XFR is an automatic overclocking is also present in the part where says "Fully automated; no user input required". If XFR was a simple turbo, AMD wouldn't need to add to the description it is completely automated. They emphasizing the automation of the technology, because this is overclocking.

Since XFR is automatic overclocking, it is disabled when manuallly overclocking.
Click to expand...

If a reviewer can't bench an AMD chip with XFR enabled (the default setting), it would make sense that a review couldn't bench an Intel chip with Turbo Boost enabled (again a default setting). If we go down the rabbit hole of removing stock CPU features, piece by piece, because the way the feature functions could look like another process, where does the cutting stop? Who makes the decision on what an 'offending' stock CPU function is? Wouldn't benching the CPU's with features disabled be a disingenuous process and immediately negate the benching procedure? Should this have started years ago when either the blue team or the red team introduced a new feature to their CPU line? If so, when would that start? 8bit vs 16bit? MMX vs non MMX? 32bit vs. 64bit?

Neither AMD or Intel chips run at a 'fixed' frequency, both sides run at a base and max frequency. This means that they are not fixed at stock settings. XFR isn't an overclock.
 
juanrga said:
Pushing clocks above the stock limit is overclocking and XFR push clocks above the "boost limit", when there is extra cooling installed in the system. You even have a graphic illustrating XFR pushing clocks above the boost max (the red line). So XFR is an automatic overclock, as mentioned by the three reviews, and one of the footnotes in AMD site mentions how product warranty does not cover damages caused by overclocking. That XFR is an automatic overclocking is also present in the part where says "Fully automated; no user input required". If XFR was a simple turbo, AMD wouldn't need to add to the description it is completely automated. They emphasizing the automation of the technology, because this is overclocking.

Since XFR is automatic overclocking, it is disabled when manuallly overclocking.
Click to expand...

XFR IS the stock limit. Not above it. Its not possible for a factory setting to be above a stock limit as the factory settings ARE the stock limit.
 
Gideon said:
You guys still arguing with Doctor Spin? Still not getting Intel Turbo boost and AMD XFR are the same thing with just different names and marketing?
Click to expand...

The problem is Dr. Spin is saying that the all core turbo that motherboard manufacturers are baking into their bioses is the same as XFR (which it isn't). I said the same thing about Turbo Boost and XFR 2 or 3 pages ago. Apparently he thinks if he posts a lot of fancy slides someone is going to think differently.
 
kirbyrj said:
The problem is Dr. Spin is saying that the all core turbo that motherboard manufacturers are baking into their bioses is the same as XFR (which it isn't). I said the same thing about Turbo Boost and XFR 2 or 3 pages ago. Apparently he thinks if he posts a lot of fancy slides someone is going to think differently.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is why the mods don't ban him for his constant trolling in the AMD forum's. It is almost like they don't care about trolling anymore. I tried to report him numerous times, and I got a temp ban for reporting him too much.

Makes ya wonder.
 
I suppose he helps push more traffic. I do often get a good laugh from reading his stuff here and elsewhere.

I eagerly await Juan's take on Intel's puma6 and puma7 disasters in cable modems.
 
Brackle said:
What I don't understand is why the mods don't ban him for his constant trolling in the AMD forum's. It is almost like they don't care about trolling anymore. I tried to report him numerous times, and I got a temp ban for reporting him too much.

Makes ya wonder.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's trolling, just delusional. Besides if he was banned it would get boring like at anandtech.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
You do know when AMD shipped ryzen packs to reviewers prior to release for reviews they sent ES chips
Click to expand...

Not true, reviewers tested retail chips.

OrangeKhrush said:
Except AMD preset max of 200mhz on the caveat of cooling,
Click to expand...

Implementation of XFR is broken in current Zen chips. The technology is supposed to increase clocks up to the limit introduced by the cooling system,¹ but it is limited to some few MHz in current models.

¹ That is why the marketing slides mention usage of LN2...
 
Final words about XFR. I am writing a resume instead linking to former posts spread in this thread.

It is evident that XFR is an automatic overclocking. That some of you don't want see it is pretty irrelevant in my opinion. The technology akin to Intel turbo is AMD's Precision Boost, not XFR, that is also evident.

Several reviews mention that XFR is an automatic overclock:

In AMD CPUs XFR, or eXtended Frequency Range, is an automated overclocking feature in AMD's Zen CPU architecture first introduced on AMD's Ryzen CPUs.
Click to expand...

https://www.custompcreview.com/wiki/xfr/

Because Ryzen in effect self-overclocks thanks to its eXtended Frequency Range (XFR) technology...
Click to expand...

http://www.trustedreviews.com/revie...nce-benchmarks-conclusion#6Y0yu05bW7sMXeHr.99

And AMD also explains how XFR is a "fully automated" overclock that pushes clocks above the stock "limits" given by precission boost, when there is extra cooling installed in the system. AMD even mentions in XFR footnotes how overclocking can null warranty even when it is made by the hardware:

https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/sense-mi

https://www.amd.com/en/partner/amd-ryzen-7-changes-cpu-market

Extended Frequency Range (XFR)
Automatic extra performance boost for enthusiasts with premium systems and processor cooling.² ³
  • Permits CPU speeds above and beyond ordinary Precision Boost limits
  • Clockspeed scales with cooling solution: air, water, and LN2
  • Fully automated; no user input required
  • Available on select AMD Ryzen™ processors

FOOTNOTES:

2. AMD’s product warranty does not cover damages caused by overclocking, even when overclocking is enabled via AMD hardware and/or software
Click to expand...

What’s more, for builders who chose premium cooling solutions, AMD’s Extended Frequency Range (XFR) technology will automatically raise clock speeds to take above the rated maximum to take full advantage of the high-performance cooling available.
Click to expand...

AMD-Extended-Frequency-Range.png


Enabling manual overclock on RyZen disables the automated overclock. This is also well-known:

The most important thing to understand when you’re overclocking Ryzen is that the chip has two modes of operation: Normal Mode and OC Mode.

Changing values in Ryzen Master will put your chip into OC Mode, which disables the Precision Power and Extended Frequency Range (XFR) overclocking features native to Ryzen in standard usage.
Click to expand...

https://www.pcworld.com/article/317...-amds-powerful-new-cpu-overclocking-tool.html

Some BIOS even denote as "Automatic OC mode" the mode with XFR activated

XFR (Extended Frequency Range) Boost only works in Automated OC mode
Click to expand...

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...ea5149b812e1c02ffc7c8d3&viewfull=1#post664713

which is expected because XFR is an automated overclock.

The XFR implementation is broken in current Zen chips. Initially AMD advertised that XFR would scale without limits. E.g. using extreme cooling, the chip would be able to push clocks within LN2 ranges. In reality XFR is limited to some few MHz independently of the cooling used. This is the initial promise made by AMD:

AMD’s big New Horizon show last night went a long way to giving people confidence that its upcoming Zen processors will be competitive with Intel’s best. However beyond stock performance, Ryzen CPUs will also be able to take advantage of AMD’s Extended Frequency Range (XFR) feature, which should automatically overclock chips to their maximum potential, based entirely on how good the cooling is.

XFR is why AMD’s new Ryzen chips have frequency ratings like 3.4GHz+, because their eventual clock speed isn’t set in stone. While Intel chips will boost their frequency by switching to ‘Turbo’ when the going gets tough, Ryzen CPUs may do far more or less, depending on how strong your cooling solution is.

As one of the biggest limiting factors for an overclock, it makes sense that as cooling improves, the theoretical maximum clock speed is also increased. Instead of simple letting the user manually clock their chip to higher frequencies, AMD’s XFR system looks to remove much of the leg work and will boost clocks without intervention.
Click to expand...

https://www.kitguru.net/components/...quency-range-could-auto-overclock-ryzen-cpus/

So everyone with a brain can see the difference between Intel/AMD turbo and AMD's XFR. Turbo is not an overclock. XFR is automatic overclock. Now some new technical details. There are bunch of frequencies defined in the SoC power management policies. There a total of eight frequencies in Zen chips, but we are now only interested in four of them:

* F_P0. This is the base frequency. This is factory defined.

* F_TMT. This is the all-core turbo. This is factory defined.

* F_TST. This is the single-core turbo. This is factory defined.

* F_TMAX. This is a max-working frequency. This is not factory defined. This frequency is a function that depends on several factors including temperature. This is the frequency associated to XFR. In principle the chip measures different parameters, including voltages and temperatures, and then increase the max frequency if measured voltages and temperatures fall under a certain safety limits. In principle using better cooling would allow Zen to achieve higher clocks, because better cooling would maintain temperatures under control. In practice it is broken and T_MAX hits a wall.

The difference between F_TST and F_TMAX is that one is warranted from factory, whereas the other is not. F_TST is a turbo frequency and works always because it is defined for the stock settings of the CPU. F_TMAX is an automatic overclock and only works if there is enough cooling in the system to push clocks beyond the factory limit defined by F_TST.

UPDATE:

Overclockers-UK has a nice description of XFR that summarizes most of what I wrote above.

Extended Frequency Range (XFR) for Automatic Overclocking

The days of racking your brains perfecting the art of the manual overclock are at an end as the CPU can control the entire process itself: The AMD Ryzen TR 1950X is equipped with the revolutionary Auto-OC feature known as Extended Frequency Range (XFR) to allow the processor's clock frequency to be drastically increased over the factory-set boost clock, provided sufficient cooling is supplied to the processor. As soon as the integrated CPU sensors detect the need for greater heat dissipation, the Ryzen CPU adjusts its clock rates to the respective cooling solution accordingly. User intervention is therefore unnecessary - overclocking has never been so easy! Depending on whether CPU temperatures are being maintained by a comparably-small air cooler, a large (dual-) tower cooler, a more capable AiO or custom water cooler, or even extreme liquid cooling options like LN2, XFR affords access to premium- and enthusiast-level clock frequencies tailored to the degree of cooling performance provided.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Since this thread has derailed into the twilight zone and is a non stop argument between a few certain individuals... ill just add my useless 2 pennies.

Calling an OC of a core turbo by both AMD and Intel is Fuckin retarded as hell.

Turbo is Japanese for Turbine and Turbos are something you put on a car to increase cylinder pressure allowing more fuel for more bang for more horsepower.

I get the need to want to be snazzy with marketing but a cpu frequency and a Turbine are completely different worlds. Its akin to saying a Chicken and a asteroid are the same thing in marketing terms.

Retards I tell you.
 
Coffee Lake is better in games. When new GPUs come out, this gap will increase. I'd buy Coffee Lake if I was building a new system now.
 
juanrga said:
Final words about XFR. I am writing a resume instead linking to former posts spread in this thread.

It is evident that XFR is an automatic overclocking. That some of you don't want see it is pretty irrelevant in my opinion. The technology akin to Intel turbo is AMD's Precision Boost, not XFR, that is also evident.

Several reviews mention that XFR is an automatic overclock:



https://www.custompcreview.com/wiki/xfr/



http://www.trustedreviews.com/revie...nce-benchmarks-conclusion#6Y0yu05bW7sMXeHr.99

And AMD also explains how XFR is a "fully automated" overclock that pushes clocks above the stock "limits" given by precission boost, when there is extra cooling installed in the system. AMD even mentions in XFR footnotes how overclocking can null warranty even when it is made by the hardware:

https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/sense-mi

https://www.amd.com/en/partner/amd-ryzen-7-changes-cpu-market





AMD-Extended-Frequency-Range.png


Enabling manual overclock on RyZen disables the automated overclock. This is also well-known:



https://www.pcworld.com/article/317...-amds-powerful-new-cpu-overclocking-tool.html

Some BIOS even denote as "Automatic OC mode" the mode with XFR activated



https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...ea5149b812e1c02ffc7c8d3&viewfull=1#post664713

which is expected because XFR is an automated overclock.

The XFR implementation is broken in current Zen chips. Initially AMD advertised that XFR would scale without limits. E.g. using extreme cooling, the chip would be able to push clocks within LN2 ranges. In reality XFR is limited to some few MHz independently of the cooling used. This is the initial promise made by AMD:



https://www.kitguru.net/components/...quency-range-could-auto-overclock-ryzen-cpus/

So everyone with a brain can see the difference between Intel/AMD turbo and AMD's XFR. Turbo is not an overclock. XFR is automatic overclock. Now some new technical details. There are bunch of frequencies defined in the SoC power management policies. There a total of eight frequencies in Zen chips, but we are now only interested in four of them:

* F_P0. This is the base frequency. This is factory defined.

* F_TMT. This is the all-core turbo. This is factory defined.

* F_TST. This is the single-core turbo. This is factory defined.

* F_TMAX. This is a max-working frequency. This is not factory defined. This frequency is a function that depends on several factors including temperature. This is the frequency associated to XFR. In principle the chip measures different parameters, including voltages and temperatures, and then increase the max frequency if measured voltages and temperatures fall under a certain safety limits. In principle using better cooling would allow Zen to achieve higher clocks, because better cooling would maintain temperatures under control. In practice it is broken and T_MAX hits a wall.

The difference between F_TST and F_TMAX is that one is warranted from factory, whereas the other is not. F_TST is a turbo frequency and works always because it is defined for the stock settings of the CPU. F_TMAX is an automatic overclock and only works if there is enough cooling in the system to push clocks beyond the factory limit defined by F_TST.
Click to expand...


If it's from the factory, it's not an overclock, period. It's a stock clock. Overclocking implies above factory stock clocks and is not possible from the manufacturer. What they deliver is stock. Upping clocks by vendor or end user over the factory clocks is overclocking. It doesn't matter what it's named or how it operates, if it operates that way from the factory, it's stock clocks. Period.

You will not find one AMD source calling it overclocking, anywhere. What they do say is it is factory unlocked to allow overclocking, but they do not refer to XFR as overclocking and anyone that does is wrong.
 
bobzdar said:
You will not find one AMD source calling it overclocking, anywhere.
Click to expand...

AMD mentioned overclocking during original talks and AMD site mentions overclocking in one of the XFR footnotes.

But even if AMD did never mention overclocking, it would mean nothing. For instance AMD site doesn't mention turbo when describing "precision boost", but we know it is a turbo.
 
juanrga said:
AMD mentioned overclocking during original talks and AMD site mentions overclocking in one of the XFR footnotes.

But even if AMD did never mention overclocking, it would mean nothing. For instance AMD site doesn't mention turbo when describing "precision boost", but we know it is a turbo.
Click to expand...

Wow, so AMD is now slapping a Turbo on the cpu's, eh? I wonder how they get the heatsink to fit and wonder what the PSI boost is. I wonder how fast it spins as well.
 
juanrga said:
AMD mentioned overclocking during original talks and AMD site mentions overclocking in one of the XFR footnotes.

But even if AMD did never mention overclocking, it would mean nothing. For instance AMD site doesn't mention turbo when describing "precision boost", but we know it is a turbo.
Click to expand...

They do not refer to it as overclocking on any current documentation. It is a stock feature, so when testing should be enabled. It's designed into the cpu. Call it whatever you want, but it's stock and should be enabled in any stock vs stock comparison.
 
Meeho said:
You say it's not defined and then proceed to define it. At this point you're either trolling or are mentally deficient. Either way, ignore is the best option.
Click to expand...

LOL. You confound the definition of a value with the definition of a function. What is not defined at factory is the value of F_TMAX, because its value is variable and depends of the cooling installed in the system.
 
juanrga said:
LOL. You confound the definition of a value with the definition of a function. What is not defined at factory is the value of F_TMAX, because its value is variable and depends of the cooling installed in the system.
Click to expand...

So in other words, pretty much the same thing Intel does with Turbo Boost just with the added variable of cooling?

What is Intel® Turbo Boost Technology?
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology is a way to automatically run the processor core faster than the noted frequency. The processor must work in the power, temperature, and specification limits of the thermal design power (TDP). Single and multi-threaded application performance increase.

I don't understand why you're being so obtuse here.
 
kirbyrj said:
I don't understand why you're being so obtuse here.
Click to expand...

I was going to do the same question to you and others. You and others here are given enough evidence. AMD, reviews, and even motherboard BIOS writers prove you are wrong, but you insist on negating the obvious, and your only argument consist on confounding XFR with Intel Turbo (Precision Boost in AMD parlance).

XFR <--> F_TMAX

Turbo (Precision Boost) <--> F_TST and F_TMT
 
juanrga said:
I was going to do the same question to you and others. You and others here are given enough evidence. AMD, reviews, and even motherboard BIOS writers prove you are wrong, but you insist on negating the obvious, and your only argument consist on confounding XFR with Intel Turbo (Precision Boost in AMD parlance).

XFR <--> F_TMAX

Turbo (Precision Boost) <--> F_TST and F_TMT
Click to expand...

Please show one official AMD document that calls it overclocking. It is factory stock configuration, same as intel turbo boost. It would be accurate to say it is 'like a factory overclock', but it is stock clock configuration so is NOT an overclock.
 
My opinion is XFR is secretly AMD turbo 2.0 depending on cooling. It seems all SKUs have XFR active. I think it is a non issue especially considering the low standard frequency.

At low clocks AMD is producing high performance and this is easily done by clock locking CPUs to 3ghz and bench running. We did this before and the results are quite surprising
 
The Earth is flat ... (Rolleyes)

adding a little more derail to this Amtrack of a thread.
 
Let see, AMD says XFR is turned off when overclocking - so does that mean? When overclocking it turns off overclocking :LOL:? As mentioned earlier it is part of the design of the chip and not being pushed beyond it rated factory defaults, just taking advantage of potential increase performance if conditions allow it.

Then who gives a shit here? You push you computer as in OC it while maintaining 100% stability in everything you do - I could care less what my stock settings will net - I look at what the full potential is.
 
Last edited:
noko said:
Let see, AMD says XFR is turned off when overclocking - so does that mean? When overclocking it turns off overclocking :LOL:? As mentioned earlier it is part of the design of the chip and not being pushed beyond it rated factory defaults, just taking advantage of potential increase performance if conditions allow it.

Then who gives a shit here? You push you computer as in OC it while maintaining 100% stability in everything you do - I could care less what my stock settings will net - I look at what the full potential is.
Click to expand...
Really?
Not rocket science.
Any manual O.C. will disable XFR. (auto O.C.)

Stop being dense on purpose.
 
Instead of the insults on both sides why don't everybody just agree to disagree and be done with it. It's very clear that there will never be an agreement on this point.
 
Last edited:
It still can't even match skylake/Kabylake in how strong and fast a core is and singlethread. It's still like 20-30% slower. but then it has the multithread advantage.
If you were to do a build probably the 1600x, that's even more affordable.
 
drescherjm said:
Instead of the insults on both sides why don't everybody just agree to disagree and be done with it. It's very clear that there will never be an agreement on this point.
Click to expand...

+1000000

At this point they are arguing about semantics, about the exact definition of overclocking, and it is getting ridiculous.

*Insert OMG Who cares and Somebody Is Wrong On The Internet memes*

Just stop it guys already, you are not getting anywhere with this discussion.
 
MaZa said:
+1000000

At this point they are arguing about semantics, about the exact definition of overclocking, and it is getting ridiculous.

*Insert OMG Who cares and Somebody Is Wrong On The Internet memes*

Just stop it guys already, you are not getting anywhere with this discussion.
Click to expand...


Coffee Lake would annihilate it. It's not even to argue about though. coffee is even unnecessary. some not realizing how powerful that is 6700/7700k overclocked is, especially for a quad core. It looks more like six core stuff already what some did and use to do man.
 
bobzdar said:
Please show one official AMD document that calls it overclocking. It is factory stock configuration, same as intel turbo boost. It would be accurate to say it is 'like a factory overclock', but it is stock clock configuration so is NOT an overclock.
Click to expand...

Answered in #404, #418, and #422.

noko said:
Let see, AMD says XFR is turned off when overclocking - so does that mean? When overclocking it turns off overclocking :LOL:?
Click to expand...

Answered in #418. XFR is enabled on "Automated OC mode", because XFR is an automated overclock feature. XFR is disabled on "Manual OC mode", because manual settings overdrive automated settings. It is not that hard to understand, or is it?
 
Too lazy to read all those above. Just tell did I make mistake buying i5-8700k ?
 
Along comes some post saying march 1 and zen 2 will be here....fast, super, great...and every other adj there is.
Then they announce that is NOT zen 2 but just another zen 1 refresh..whoopee not

I just keep hearing about how much better the stock and oc speeds are of intel, and how low the gaming performance is that AMD just doesn't seem like a great choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top