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.
Output IPC can change with something like reorganised caches, different uncore clocks, things like that. BUT the change in IPC will be very minor.
Looks like they shopped some old slides... Are there any similar looking slides from that date?Fake as hell. Look at the embargo date. Always wait for at least 2 sources.
4.35Ghz boost that's 350Mhz not 250Mhz
Where's PCI-E 4.0
IPC is instructions per cycle, it doesn't change without an architectural change. Increasing clock increases performance, but not IPC.
To get that CB score on an R7, you would need an amazing overclock. On an 8700k, you would need exotic cooling. This does it stock.
No 2800x. Hmmmm am really considering that r7 2700 for my Dan case paired with the upcoming C7 copper.
https://videocardz.com/75194/amd-ryzen-2000-series-exposed-pricing-performance-leaked
R7 1700 does 164 at 4GHz. It would do 178 showed in this leak if it was clocked at 4.3GHz. This leaked score is 15% behind the score of a 8700k stock.
Hopefully there's not a huge reason to upgrade to X470 from X370. If I'm already running 3200Mhz memory, I can live with a less efficient chipset (~2W difference).
So confirmation that 400-series mobos will be needed to extract all the performance from the new chips. The new chips will be capped in older 300-series mobos.
2933MHz confirmed. Just as I said it has the same memory clocks than Raven Ridge.
Very interesting the higher clocked model has now an official TDP of 105W and requires a new cooler. So those 400MHz extra aren't coming only from the updated 14nm+ process (aka '12nm'), buy from pushing thermals 10W extra. This could explain why there is no 2800X.
Average gaming increase only 5% at 1080p.
did you ignore all the "its fake" post about that link?
These slides look pretty legit. Real AMD slides have had mistakes/typos before. Nothing about them screams fake, no crazy performance claims, no crazy "boost up to 4.6GHZ!!!~" claims either. People have been wondering what the justification for the 400 series chipsets would be and the slides make sense too, slightly better boost performance (I doubt there will be a significant difference in scenarios where you're overclocking). But to me it looks more like AMD was throwing a bone to the mobo manufacturers while appeasing the users who already bought motherboards by not locking them out. I would say that this refresh looks pretty decent despite what the usual suspects are saying.. look at how many product releases/refreshes Intel had between Sandybridge and Coffee Lake that had next to no performance difference, at least we're seeing some decent clockspeed gains here to bridge the gap - will be interesting to see how far they get on 7nm.
I would say IF you can get 3600 or even 4000mhz speeds it might be worth it. But that might be wishful thinking. Only have 1 more month to wait!
These slides look pretty legit. Real AMD slides have had mistakes/typos before. Nothing about them screams fake, no crazy performance claims, no crazy "boost up to 4.6GHZ!!!~" claims either. People have been wondering what the justification for the 400 series chipsets would be and the slides make sense too, slightly better boost performance (I doubt there will be a significant difference in scenarios where you're overclocking).
Memory speed is reliant on the imc not motherboard
So confirmation that 400-series mobos will be needed to extract all the performance from the new chips. The new chips will be capped in older 300-series mobos.
2933MHz confirmed. Just as I said it has the same memory clocks than Raven Ridge.
Very interesting the higher clocked model has now an official TDP of 105W and requires a new cooler. So those 350MHz extra aren't coming only from the updated 14nm+ process (aka '12nm'), but from pushing thermals 10W above. This could explain why there is no 2800X.
Average gaming increase only 5% at 1080p.
Man you get so much wrong. One can configure p-states on a 300 series board to do the same thing the 400 will just do it automatically, also if someone is overclocking they are overclocking for all cores most times so then it becomes a moot point. It's a small bump in the TDP and it comes with a cooler now that the old X chips did not, so you now get a cooler for it instead of a empty box. They could make a 2800X but they learned there is no point since most people will pick the slightly slower chip and just overclock it, a smart move on their part. Single threaded games will get the biggest boost, not really a shocker with the increased frequency and ones that use all the cores see very little difference, go figure. Your spin is always obvious.
One of the slides says that 400-series motherboards are "required" for overdrive boost.
You missed my point about the higher TDP. My comment was aimed to remark how that 350MHz bump has required 10% higher TDP, because 12LP alone couldn't provide the clock bump.
And why the games that use all cores see little difference? Because there is no 10--15% higher IPC, neither 10% higher base clocks as others believed. The IPC gain is practically zero and the base clock is less than 3% higher.
Funny that you accuse me of "spin", when Pinnacle Ridge is very very close to what I said it would be. I got ridiculous accusations of trolling and shilling when I said that Pinnacle Ridge would have 200--400MHz higher.
So, what are you complaining about, exactly?
I don't know.Pinnacle Ridge is very very close to what I expected, so what is the problem?
I'm really curious as to how binned the processors will be across the lineup. Will users be able to overclock the Ryzen 5 2600 or 2600X to similar 4.3/4.4 levels that the 2700X offers? It seems like they're really trying to segment the processors by cooler as well, which is sort of an artificial barrier with thermal headroom. I think it's going to be a tough battle for the midrange. The 2600X at $250 might be a tough sell if the 2600 can hit the same clockspeeds and offer a better value compared to the Intel counterparts. But the Ryzen 5 1600 was a huge seller for AMD, I can see why they might want to push more people towards the "X" model and get a little more cash out of the midrange/value chips.
I'm really curious as to how binned the processors will be across the lineup. Will users be able to overclock the Ryzen 5 2600 or 2600X to similar 4.3/4.4 levels that the 2700X offers? It seems like they're really trying to segment the processors by cooler as well, which is sort of an artificial barrier with thermal headroom. I think it's going to be a tough battle for the midrange. The 2600X at $250 might be a tough sell if the 2600 can hit the same clockspeeds and offer a better value compared to the Intel counterparts. But the Ryzen 5 1600 was a huge seller for AMD, I can see why they might want to push more people towards the "X" model and get a little more cash out of the midrange/value chips. B450 + Ryzen 5 2600 could be a good value proposition since Intel have struggled to get h370/b360 boards out.
I just think the prices are a bit screwy on these slides. Why would they keep the 1500x and 1300x at higher prices then the RR counter parts? Also, I have my doubts that the 2600 will release at $200. Especially with Intel dragging their feet on B-360.