AMD launches Zen+ 12nm Ryzen and X470 motherboards

The improved inter-core latency and higher speed memory support has me excited.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
So basically Canard PC support Black Market products, they got their samples by buying them from a person that may have also been in the cycle of buying ES samples. One term of NDA is that you cannot sell ES chips. They have no integrity and their testing reasoning is full of contradictions. They claim no difference but then don't post X470 scores when there a re clear reviews out there that show the vast performance difference going A320 to X370 notably load line calibration which is not on A320 boards and chips throttling because the VRM's overheat. There is no justification to put AMD's flagship parts on a entry level board, the 8700K reviews were done on the best Z370 motherboards on the market, not a H110.
Click to expand...

So basically you are now changing the version after your original accusation was refuted by CPC as "total bullshit" and not only on-line but with public mention to AMD representative in France.

And let me remark you again that CPC didn't test any ES. They tested retail chips. A photo of the retails chips was given above.

They don't post X470 scores because there is only 1--2% difference. Other reviews show similar minimal differences between boards. For instance R7-1800X in the fastest X370 does only 1.6% higher score in CB15 than 1800x does in Gigabyte A320. The gap is 1.7% in 3DMark, 0.2% in Passmark CPU,...

https://us.hardware.info/comparison...951-386379-386381-386635-391119-391120-386378

The CPC review is representative of real-world performance for non-overclockers.

Derfnofred said:
ES samples, depending on where they are in the development cycle, shouldn't be too far off end-performance. This has been shown on plenty of occasions and makes sense when you start breaking down the whole development cycle. At engineering sampling, the yield rate may be absolutely atrocious, but the chips that do get validated for use are generally okay.
Click to expand...

There is no ES of Pinnacle Ridge. And CPC tested retails chips.

Master_shake_ said:
the real TDP of the 7700k is 152watts juan.
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming that.
 
Last edited:
juanrga said:
So basically you are now changing the version after your original accusation was refuted by CPC as "total bullshit" and not only on-line but with public mention to AMD representative in France.

And let me remark you again that CPC didn't test any ES. They tested retail chips. A photo of the retails chips was given above.

They don't post X470 scores because there is only 1--2% difference. Other reviews show similar minimal differences between boards. For instance R7-1800X in the fastest X370 does only 1.6% higher score in CB15 than 1800x does in Gigabyte A320. The gap is 1.7% in 3DMark, 0.2% in Passmark CPU,...

https://us.hardware.info/comparison...951-386379-386381-386635-391119-391120-386378

The CPC review is representative of real-life performance for non-overclockers.



There is no ES of Pinnacle Ridge. And CPC tested retails chips.



Keep dreaming that.
Click to expand...
I don't have to I have evidence.

power_gaming.png


Look juan

I can actually back up my statements with real evidence not made up bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
juanrga said:
So basically you are now changing the version after your original accusation was refuted by CPC as "total bullshit" and not only on-line but with public mention to AMD representative in France.

And let me remark you again that CPC didn't test any ES. They tested retail chips. A photo of the retails chips was given above.

They don't post X470 scores because there is only 1--2% difference. Other reviews show similar minimal differences between boards. For instance R7-1800X in the fastest X370 does only 1.6% higher score in CB15 than 1800x does in Gigabyte A320. The gap is 1.7% in 3DMark, 0.2% in Passmark CPU,...

https://us.hardware.info/comparison...951-386379-386381-386635-391119-391120-386378

The CPC review is representative of real-life performance for non-overclockers.



There is no ES of Pinnacle Ridge. And CPC tested retails chips.



Keep dreaming that.
Click to expand...

Remember AMD only tests retail chips (they don't make engineering samples anymore apparently) and that non 'R5' 2600 with no QR Code is absolutely a retail chip just because AMD likes to make just one CPU in their CPU line be absolutely different than the rest in the chips in the series.
 
Dermac said:
Remember AMD only tests retail chips (they don't make engineering samples anymore apparently) and that non 'R5' 2600 with no QR Code is absolutely a retail chip just because AMD likes to make just one CPU in their CPU line be absolutely different than the rest in the chips in the series.
Click to expand...

I already explained how AMD and parters test Pinnacle Ridge, and it is not with retail chips. That 2600 in the photo is either QS or preproduction sample, the other three models are retail chips.
 
Master_shake_ said:
I don't have to I have evidence.

View attachment 64002

Look juan

I can actually back up my statements with real evidence not made up bullshit.
Click to expand...

If you look at TPU review of the 8700k, their gaming power consumption for 1800x is higher than 7700k, not saying Ryzen isn't a efficient chip, it is efficient especially cramming 8 cores, but something is weird from their 1800x review and their 8700k review when they compare gaming power consumption for 7700k.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/16.html
 
juanrga said:
And let me remark you again that CPC didn't test any ES. They tested retail chips. A photo of the retails chips was given above.
Click to expand...

So that 2600 is a retail chip, you said it was. But I guess that chip isn't a retail chip, so they didn't test only retail chips then? What other things are just different than what you say?
 
Chimpee said:
If you look at TPU review of the 8700k, their gaming power consumption for 1800x is higher than 7700k, not saying Ryzen isn't a efficient chip, it is efficient especially cramming 8 cores, but something is weird from their 1800x review and their 8700k review when they compare gaming power consumption for 7700k.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/16.html
Click to expand...
Total system was measured on the 8700k review.

Doesn't change that at the 1800x review the 7700k used more power than the 95 watt or whatever tdp.

Tpu even commented on it.
 
Master_shake_ said:
Total system was measured on the 8700k review.

Doesn't change that at the 1800x review the 7700k used more power than the 95 watt or whatever tdp.

Tpu even commented on it.
Click to expand...

Even if it is total system being measure for the 8700K, shouldn't that also reflect a higher power draw for the 7700K? If 1800X beat 7700K on Gaming power draw on their 1800X review, wouldn't that still hold true in the 8700K review?
 
Chimpee said:
Even if it is total system being measure for the 8700K, shouldn't that also reflect a higher power draw for the 7700K? If 1800X beat 7700K on Gaming power draw on their 1800X review, wouldn't that still hold true in the 8700K review?
Click to expand...

It's more likely something on th amd platform is drawing more power perhaps the chipset or something.

Tpu would have to measure the same way instead of total system power to get a comparable result.
 
Master_shake_ said:
It's more likely something on th amd platform is drawing more power perhaps the chipset or something.

Tpu would have to measure the same way instead of total system power to get a comparable result.
Click to expand...

It does look like it, just seems weird to see that kind of discrepancy from one CPU review to another CPU review where 7700K does worse than 1800X than all of a sudden does better than 1800X on power draw.
 
Looks like the 2600 is the value winner, as it'd not surprise me if it OC's exactly the same as its big brother, and few applications can take advantage of 6 logical cores, much less more. (Render farm aside)
 
Are they giving everyone a HS this time around?
Would make the X models a little more attractive. There was a note on one of the pre-release slides that said, Precision Boost Overdrive on the X470/B450 chipset's will only work on the "X" model CPU's. X models could have more value this time around.
 
funkydmunky said:
Are they giving everyone a HS this time around?
Would make the X models a little more attractive. There was a note on one of the pre-release slides that said, Precision Boost Overdrive on the X470/B450 chipset's will only work on the "X" model CPU's. X models could have more value this time around.
Click to expand...

Yes, the 2700X gets the wraith prism.

I'm contemplating grabbing a 2700X, x470 board, high end air cooler and then a 2400g and putting the prism on that in my old b350 for a portable gaming rig, and selling my 1700.
 
Dermac said:
So that 2600 is a retail chip, you said it was. But I guess that chip isn't a retail chip, so they didn't test only retail chips then? What other things are just different than what you say?
Click to expand...

CPC tested retail chips. It is in their magazine. The photo with the chips is from computerbase desk as I said in #209.

Some other misunderstanding you want to share with us?
 
_mockingbird said:
Amazon is now taking preorders
Click to expand...

just waiting for the x470 motherboards from gigabyte and maybe asus to show up so i can decide which one i want.. the taichi's being moved to run my 2400g that's sitting here on my desk. this will definitely be the last asrock board i ever own though, that's for sure.
 
_mockingbird said:
CanardPC has about as much credibility as the National Enquirer does.

No one here gives a #### about CanardPC except you.
Click to expand...

I know some of you prefer reviews from sites that don't know basic math about percentages and publish weird power measurements for 7700k as TPU. Now say me something I don't know.
 
juanrga said:
I know some of you prefer reviews from sites that don't know basic math about percentages and publish weird power measurements for 7700k as TPU. Now say me something I don't know.
Click to expand...

Testing a 105W processor on an A320 motherboard that only supports 65W processors and then publishing the results has to be a new yardstick for stupid.

Even Joe Blow testing the processor on a retail X370 motherboard would have more credibility.
 
Last edited:
You guys would be better off not even replying to him. I mean no one is going to be stupid enough to actually pair the 100+ watt processor with a A series motherboard since the A series is rate to 65 watts and expect optimum performance out of the system.
 
_mockingbird said:
Testing a 105W processor on an A320 motherboard that only supports 65W processors and then publishing the results has to be a new yardstick for stupid.

Even Joe Blow testing the processor on a retail X370 motherboard would have more credibility.
Click to expand...

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.
 
juanrga said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
damn good deal for the 2600 non X. Curious if it can overlock as high as the other Ryzen CPU's like Gen1 could.
 
The itch is strong but with current prices I am second guessing how much of an upgrade is the 2700x going to be over my 2500k @4.4
 
dgz said:
The itch is strong but with current prices I am second guessing how much of an upgrade is the 2700x going to be over my 2500k @4.4
Click to expand...

Pretty significant I would assume. The 2500K is a bad ass processor but its getting old, especially in multithreaded applications, I still have one running also at that speed in my second machine. I think it might be time to bid it farewell & hang it on the wall.
 
Krenum said:
Pretty significant I would assume. The 2500K is a bad ass processor but its getting old, especially in multithreaded applications, I still have one running also at that speed in my second machine. I think it might be time to bid it farewell & hang it on the wall.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am confident in MT performance. How about games? My 1070 isn't the best thing ever but having PUBG and Deus Ex Mankind Divided crawl on me at ~50 min is really annoying but I am not sure it's the CPU that's holding me back at 1080@120. If only every game could run as smooth as Doom...
 
dgz said:
Oh, I am confident in MT performance. How about games? My 1070 isn't the best thing ever but having PUBG and Deus Ex Mankind Divided crawl on me at ~50 min is really annoying but I am not sure it's the CPU that's holding me back at 1080@120. If only every game could run as smooth as Doom...
Click to expand...

PUBG from what I hear is very un optimized & probably never will be a fully, isn't that game still in Early Access Beta? DOOM came from a AAA developer that had time to test it, I dont think its fare to compare the two.

About the 2500K though, yes I would think that it is hindering your performance, probably by atleast 20%, the old Sandy isn't what it used to be.
 
Krenum said:
PUBG from what I hear is very un optimized & probably never will be a fully, isn't that game still in Early Access Beta? DOOM came from a AAA developer that had time to test it, I dont think its fare to compare the two.
Click to expand...

Unreal Engine in general has a REALLY long pipeline and does not do high framerates well.
 
Really looking forward to seeing how this refresh works out. I'm not in the market currently for a new computer and I'm not going Ryzen for my next build (I'm going Threadripper). It's good to see Intel getting kicked off its complacent ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top