Leaked AMD Ryzen Benchmarks?

[THUMPer]

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-processor-benchmark-cinebench-leak/

Im just going to leave these over here

My pants just came off.

 

[bobzdar]

Oh do you know the architecture than, so how are you coming up with specific numbers?

LOL goes both way Bobzdar.

Lets see, I don't know anything I'm talking about because I don't know the architecture, which I stated i can't say anything conclusive but all those things come into play, but you can say something conclusive with exact figures without knowing the architecture?

I don't care about leaks, I care about what AMD partners are telling the leakers of information. Why would motherboard manufacturers tell the leakers they can't seem to overclock these chips without water cooling (to skylake level frequencies).

It has nothing to do with the leaked benchmarks, cause we haven't seen any overclocking with leaked benchmarks, not only that all leaked benchmarks and AMD benchmarks have XFR turned off and boost disabled, why is that, the only thing I can surmise is what the leakers are saying is true, its another feather in their hat. Everything points to the same thing, even AMD's own inability to turn on XFR and boosts. Worse yet, if its anything like the P11 showing, I think we will see a mark-able increasing in power draw with boosts and XFR on. Crazy amounts like 20% increases or more. This is because of AMD's past history of not showing things up front, added to this, X1800 and X1700 chips that use higher end motherboards (that overclock), already have marketing materials that have 95+ watt TDP configs, so...... yeah. What AMD showed before with power usage and disabled boosts, is 95 watts. But without boosts we don't get any idea of what the end results are.

Come on.

You don't even know the process limits of GF 14nm LPP right?

Just a observation I saw with all the chips coming out of GF 14nm node 1.34 seems to be the max voltage.

Which interesting enough coincides with TSMC's 16nm, they get around 1.35

Then you look at Intel's 14nm with Skylake, they get up to 1.4

Yes process makes a difference too and all of it has to do with leakage.

And Peiter that is AMD marketing for ya, they will show you the best and hope that the worst will be sweapt under the rug, we have seen this how many times?

Lets see, Polaris launch, what was P11's perf/watt vs 950ti, what did they show months ago? Why didn't that come out with its launch?

Lets see, BD do you remember the forum leaks that were done by the Server Marketing Director? This isn't anything like that but when they have something that shows them in not such a good light, they won't show it directly or they won't show it at all. If they have something good, they will show it, without any qualms.

If they show their IPC, it will be less than recent Intel products, they don't want to show that, that is why they show games that are capped and GPU limited, or Blender or Handbrake that have little do with IPC.

Just like they did with P11, and capped it, so we didn't know the frame rates and real power usage it would get against a capped 950 ti which didn't have the luxury of discarding frames even when capped. Giving you and many other less understanding people why AMD did what they did, I even stated, we don't know the results becuase of those reasons, yet people like you would come up with their justified reasons. Then we see the end results, P11 edges out a 1 year old product on a bigger node, "YEAH GREAT!" Shit they couldn't even get close to 750ti with perf.watt, which is what a 2.5 year old product at that time lol.

Cause they don't want to really show they are still behind by quite a bit.

NO MARKETING TEAM IN ANY COMPANY will shy way from showing things they know that its important for their sales.

IPC was hammered into peoples brains for the past 10 years by Intel and reviewers as the best performance metrics for today's applications (which is only partial true), THIS IS WHY AMD WILL NOT GIVE ANYTHING THAT WILL REMOTELY SHOW US THAT. I would almost bet on their product review guides to shy away from applications that rely heavily on IPC as well at this point, things like cinebench 15 single core performance, even though cinebench 15 overall in multithreading should be better on AMD hardware, watch out for things like that cause it will happen.

Then we have to look at AMD CPU TDP its definition isn't what they are following for their end figure they give at least not for bulldozer. AMD rounds down their figures, then you have Intel that takes an average of most used applications and rounds up. So if AMD sticks with what they have been doing, a 95watt CPU from AMD might be very close to a 140 watt Intel with actaul power consumption is looked at (Intel might be higher but not by much)

Now AMD didn't use this type of TDP figures prior to BD, so 95 might really mean 95, lets wait and see though, cause for the 1800x and 1700x, depending on the motherboard (yeah XFR), they use 95 watts TDP + in their marketing material (yeah I have already seen some marketing material lol) interesting you asked this earlier, which I'm thinking AMD's chips are still being rounded down for power consumption.

Back to marketing,

MARKETING ONLY WORKS IF ITS DIRECT.

This pussy footing around IPC by AMD without direct comparisons, the locked frame rates on games they show or GPU limited games they show, or barely edging out Intel Broadwell in multithreaded tests they are all smoke screens to get people talking about Ryzen, the hype, yeah when this CPU shows up and doesn't do much better than Haswell in games, and single threaded apps, what will you say? How many people are willing to upgrade to something that has been out for oh 3 years already? What is the average life cycle of upgrades for PC users. And why would anyone buy AMD products (price withstanding, if Intel doesn't go into a price war with AMD, it will be a mistake on their part)? Businesses won't buy AMD products, its the same shit that's already out there for years, why have two different platforms? So they can have more overhead in their IT department. Doesn't make sense right?

I guess you completely missed the part where I said 'that's somewhat of a wild stab', precisely because we don't know enough about the architecture yet.

As to marketing, AMD has been hammering the ipc improvements,so not sure where you get that their shying away from it?

XFR is kind of the wild card, but as I understand it, 1800x is 3.6/4.0 turbo at 95w tdp. It's 95w+ if you disable tdp limit (or set it higher) and enable XFR with enhanced cooling and then there does not appear to be a tdp or clock limit (or if there is one,they haven't said ), it'll probably just be thermal limits based on the on die sensors. Hence my wild stab at 4.2. Enthusiast chilling with manual tweaking can probably get more but tbh I'd be plenty happy with 8c/16t bursting to 4.2 on lightly threaded stuff and running 3.8 in heavily threaded stuff, which is my WILD STAB at a prediction.

 

[razor1]

I guess you completely missed the part where I said 'that's somewhat of a wild stab', precisely because we don't know enough about the architecture yet.

As to marketing, AMD has been hammering the ipc improvements,so not sure where you get that their shying away from it?

XFR is kind of the wild card, but as I understand it, 1800x is 3.6/4.0 turbo at 95w tdp. It's 95w+ if you disable tdp limit (or set it higher) and enable XFR with enhanced cooling and then there does not appear to be a tdp or clock limit (or if there is one,they haven't said ), it'll probably just be thermal limits based on the on die sensors. Hence my wild stab at 4.2. Enthusiast chilling with manual tweaking can probably get more but tbh I'd be plenty happy with 8c/16t bursting to 4.2 on lightly threaded stuff and running 3.8 in heavily threaded stuff, which is my WILD STAB at a prediction.

They are shying way from it because they don't want to show it agaisnt anything other than chips that are close to it. And that is also because their SMT is more capable than Intel's hyperthreading so by showing Blender and Handbrake being close to Broadwell, their IPC will be more like Haswell, with the extra 12 % or so advantage they with SMT equalizes those tests.

They sure talked a shit load about perf/watt with Polaris, but that was when they had no clue about Pascal, then after that did Polaris's perf/watt look good?

Also they didn't even compare their perf/watt to pascal after seeing it either. They also stopped talking about against Maxwell too! P11 demo was before Pascal launch, after that, no more talking about P11's perf/watt against Maxwell.

1800x is 3.6 with 4.0 boost at 95 watts that is correct, XFR will need more cooling.

And that is what I stated, looks to be thermals that is holding back the frequency.

I'm also talking about base clocks above 4.0 not boost or XFR. That was clear from the start. I've always stated base clocks. And that is what the other guy is talking about too, BASE clocks of 4.0 I don't think is going to be possible without water cooling. So boost clocks of 4.4 and XFR range above that.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

The leak source is from a professional overclocker, and a world champion at one point. He confirmed that it was 3.4ghz ACT for both ST and MT.

1136 MT
134 ST

@3.7 max turbo

1236
146

SMT is out of this world, it obliterates the 5820K and 5930K no issues and the ST IPC looks to be as confirmed from my source about 5% off Broadwell E and 8-9% off Kaby/Skylake

Dayumn that SMT just got real.

 

[razor1]

The leak source is from a professional overclocker, and a world champion at one point. He confirmed that it was 3.4ghz ACT for both ST and MT.

1136 MT
134 ST

@3.7 max turbo

1236
146

SMT is out of this world, it obliterates the 5820K and 5930K no issues and the ST IPC looks to be as confirmed from my source about 5% off Broadwell E and 8-9% off Kaby/Skylake

Dayumn that SMT just got real.

So my 12% faster SMT than HT seems to be correct.

 

[SighTurtle]

Assuming this is real (who leaked it, names, links, come on), at this point I'm assuming this is good right?

 

[razor1]

I think its good, its pretty close to the scores I have gotten too. And the % differences are also in those ranges.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

I think its good, its pretty close to the scores I have gotten too. And the % differences are also in those ranges.

I got the Single Thread prediction about right, got the MT wrong, it was much lower but dayumn that MT is wild

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Assuming this is real (who leaked it, names, links, come on), at this point I'm assuming this is good right?

The source is a world champion overclocker from Indonesia, his pic was taken with guys surprised faces, he then followed up with them testing base clocks on a el cheapo cooler and he then tweated to the doubters that the Cinebench scores are nothing seen before at that price point.

He will be in so much trouble, but so worth it

 

[SighTurtle]

The source is a world champion overclocker from Indonesia, his pic was taken with guys surprised faces, he then followed up with them testing base clocks on a el cheapo cooler and he then tweated to the doubters that the Cinebench scores are nothing seen before at that price point.

He will be in so much trouble, but so worth it

Perhaps not a lot of trouble....


According to the reddit post, the two guys on either side of him, one is a AMD rep for Indonesia, the other with a AMD distributor partner. So marketing ad, although would I be wrong in saying that their reactions might be a little genuine? I can't think that AMD would inform marketing and distribution until the chips start being released for distributors.

 

[SighTurtle]

But I'm not seeing the association between Alva Jonathan and the cinebench picture. Did he release that picture or are you assuming so?

 

[CSI_PC]

The leak source is from a professional overclocker, and a world champion at one point. He confirmed that it was 3.4ghz ACT for both ST and MT.

1136 MT
134 ST

@3.7 max turbo

1236
146

SMT is out of this world, it obliterates the 5820K and 5930K no issues and the ST IPC looks to be as confirmed from my source about 5% off Broadwell E and 8-9% off Kaby/Skylake

Dayumn that SMT just got real.

Part of the reason I would put down to the 'leak' Buildzoid mentioned in his vid with regards to Flank3r who works for one of the primary publications that has Ryzen and Buildzoid inferred this figure is of value (considering he is also under NDA).

5 GHz Ryzen AIR - not real. Thats all.
4.2-4.4 GHz could be doable at all cores.

With many threads the Intel HEDT will be pegged at best to its boost clock, and it looks like the Ryzen X models can guarantee their cores to their max standard boost and possibly a bit beyond dynamically (we need to see if this also applies with the standard cooler on 1800X but I would say everyone will be looking to put something like a Noctua AM4 D15 on these anyway).
As I mentioned HEDT only go above their boost ceiling for single core/thread when not overclocked (only those with Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 such as Broadwell HEDT).

I would ignore the older HEDT such as 5820/etc though as they had low standard clocks and designed to OC like mad, no-one should be using those with standard boost.
So that means comparing it to the 6850K (6C/12T) that has a boost range of 3.6 to 3.8GHz and at Anandtech the Cinenebench multi-thread score for that as standard is 1154.

So yeah I tend to think the rumour about its all cores active supporting above 4GHz is looking true, in this case probably find the Ryzen 6C is staying at boost with its cooling-thermal envelope while the 6850K is dropping down from its 3.8GHz

The key for many consumers is how close it can get to the 4C/8T 7700K in games, but it is looking a much better bet than HEDT until Intel finally get to launch Skylake-E and still to be seen how much that improves over Broadwell-E.
Yeah feeling good about Ryzen, but some may need to accept it is going to trail the 7700K in certain games but better in others although for now it is weighted more still towards the 4-Core 6700K/7700K, down the line one would like to think AMD will get developers to push more balanced thread development in game engines, especially so when considering consoles and more development focused on them initially.
Personally I can live with that if it gets within 5-8% of the I7 4C/8T CPUs in games with poor multi-thread utilisation, the 1800X is the best bet for getting closest to those Intel CPUs and with a great cooler may be within 5% of say 6700K that has not been overclocked to the extremes and for games not the absolute worst offending threaded ones (usually the older ones and some Indy).
For a good threaded game looking really good for the upper Ryzens.
Cheers

 

[os2wiz]

They are shying way from it because they don't want to show it agaisnt anything other than chips that are close to it. And that is also because their SMT is more capable than Intel's hyperthreading so by showing Blender and Handbrake being close to Broadwell, their IPC will be more like Haswell, with the extra 12 % or so advantage they with SMT equalizes those tests.

They sure talked a shit load about perf/watt with Polaris, but that was when they had no clue about Pascal, then after that did Polaris's perf/watt look good?

Also they didn't even compare their perf/watt to pascal after seeing it either. They also stopped talking about against Maxwell too! P11 demo was before Pascal launch, after that, no more talking about P11's perf/watt against Maxwell.

1800x is 3.6 with 4.0 boost at 95 watts that is correct, XFR will need more cooling.

And that is what I stated, looks to be thermals that is holding back the frequency.

I'm also talking about base clocks above 4.0 not boost or XFR. That was clear from the start. I've always stated base clocks. And that is what the other guy is talking about too, BASE clocks of 4.0 I don't think is going to be possible without water cooling. So boost clocks of 4.4 and XFR range above that.

With good liquid cooler, I say a sustained 4.2 GHZ overclock on all 8 cores NOT just light threads as the you say on the 1800X. Excellent fan will get up to 4.0 GHZ base frequency.

 

[razor1]

With good liquid cooler, I say a sustained 4.2 GHZ overclock on all 8 cores NOT just light threads as the you say on the 1800X. Excllent fan will get up to 4.0 GHZ base frequency.

I am not comparing single core overclocking clocks to full chip overclocking, I'm expecting Ryzen to be full chip overclock on all cores. I was looking at some patents about AMD's SMT a while back, it doesn't seem like it will do well if only certain cores will over clock while others don't. But I'm guessing, cause yeah its just a patent. But any case, I don't think Ryzen will be able to just overclock one core, its seems to be all or none.

 

[GroundZero]

With good liquid cooler, I say a sustained 4.2 GHZ overclock on all 8 cores NOT just light threads as the you say on the 1800X. Excllent fan will get up to 4.0 GHZ base frequency.

If I can hit 4ghz on my Phenom II X6 on air at 160W with a Xigmatek gaia with 2 fans then 4.2 is way low. We can expect much higher from the latest high end air coolers.

The last thing AMD wants to do is scare the crap out of Intel and make them flush all their inventory before Ryzen is launched.

 

[razor1]

And we got another one, like Magic Hate Ball's twin, wow.

Ground Zero doesn't work that way, different chip, different node, different thermal limits, can't just expect it happens on another chip to happen on Ryzen.

 

[os2wiz]

I am not comparing single core overclocking clocks to full chip overclocking, I'm expecting Ryzen to be full chip overclock on all cores. I was looking at some patents about AMD's SMT a while back, it doesn't seem like it will do well if only certain cores will over clock while others don't. But I'm guessing, cause yeah its just a patent. But any case, I don't think Ryzen will be able to just overclock one core, its seems to be all or none.

I really do not know about that. I assumed turbo was on 8 cores but naysayer Juanrga insists it is on only 1 core. This issue with XFR and Turbo and how many cores are boosted needs to be cleared up by AMD. I assume it will be by Feb 28.

 

[os2wiz]

If I can hit 4ghz on my Phenom II X6 on air at 160W with a Xigmatek gaia with 2 fans then 4.2 is way low. We can expect much higher from the latest high end air coolers.

The last thing AMD wants to do is scare the crap out of Intel and make them flush all their inventory before Ryzen is launched.

I am being conservative when I say 4.0 on excellent fan and 4.2 on water. I am hopeful it will be 43. or 4.4 GHZ on good water cooling ( something better than a Corsair H100i)

 

[GroundZero]

And we got another one, like Magic Hate Ball's twin, wow.

Ground Zero doesn't work that way, different chip, different node, different thermal limits, can't just expect it happens on another chip to happen on Ryzen.

The newer coolers are signifigantly better than what I have.

1100T is a 125W part stock, Ryzen is 95W stock.

1100T stock 3.3ghz no turbo. Ryzen 3.4ghz stock/4ghz turbo.

I don't think that with a better air cooler than what I have that 4.5+ on air is out of the ballpark. And yes I know they are not the same chip. Samples have already hit 4.5.

 

[lolfail9001]

I really do not know about that. I assumed turbo was on 8 cores but naysayer Juanrga insists it is on only 1 core. This issue with XFR and Turbo and how many cores are boosted needs to be cleared up by AMD. I assume it will be by Feb 28.

On every sample we have ever got hint of all core turbo was 0.15Ghz higher than base clock. I presume it is the same here and with first Passmark leak.

Anyways, i have a bad feeling that this XFR thing IS NOT what we think it is.

 

[razor1]

The newer coolers are signifigantly better than what I have.

1100T is a 125W part stock, Ryzen is 95W stock.

1100T stock 3.3ghz no turbo. Ryzen 3.4ghz stock/4ghz turbo.

I don't think that with a better air cooler than what I have that 4.5+ on air is out of the ballpark. And yes I know they are not the same chip. Samples have already hit 4.5.

Doesn't matter what coolers, or anything like that. Overclocking has much more to do with what a chip is designed for, how it was designed, and node, and what that node is capable of. Everything matters. Once we have more info on the motherboard, we can get a clear picture of how much the max power draw will be on Ryzen.

So just because Phenom II can draw 160 watts on air doesn't mean Ryzen can.

And there has been no confirmation that 4.5 ghz has been done on air yet, quite the contrary rumors are above 4.0 ghz base clocks, water is necessary on most chips. If you are talking about max boost clocks of 4.5, yeah I might be able see that happening, not base clocks of 4.5 on air.

 

[razor1]

On every sample we have ever got hint of all core turbo was 0.15Ghz higher than base clock. I presume it is the same here and with first Passmark leak.

Anyways, i have a bad feeling that this XFR thing IS NOT what we think it is.

Heard something about XFR?

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

Doesn't matter what coolers, or anything like that.

And there has been no confirmation that 4.5 ghz has been done on air yet, quite the contrary rumors are above 4.0 ghz base clocks, water is necessary on most chips.

LOL

So is it cooling related or not? Kind of contradicting yourself again.

 

[os2wiz]

Doesn't matter what coolers, or anything like that. Overclocking has much more to do with what a chip is designed for, how it was designed, and node, and what that node is capable of. Everything matters. Once we have more info on the motherboard, we can get a clear picture of how much the max power draw will be on Ryzen.

So just because Phenom II can draw 160 watts on air doesn't mean Ryzen can.

And there has been no confirmation that 4.5 ghz has been done on air yet, quite the contrary rumors are above 4.0 ghz base clocks, water is necessary on most chips. If you are talking about max boost clocks of 4.5, yeah I might be able see that happening, not base clocks of 4.5 on air.

I know what a wild eyed optimist is and not many of us expected 4.5 on air on all 8 cores. I certainly did not.But it is conceivable to me that 4.1 8 core overclock may be obtainable on air on the best of air coolers. On water up to 4.3 GHZ. I am not going to speculate more than that. We will have to see some comprehensive reviews on 2/28 to know more definitely. I will be highly satisfied if my guesstimate is accurate and elated if it is actualily a little higher. I can't conceive of it being less than my conservative estimate.

 

[SighTurtle]

I really hope the reviewers have samples right now (and that NDA lifts next week instead of the week after), cause I'm really keen on what XFR really does. Is it marketing? Is it something cool? Is it comparable to something Intel already has?

Sigh. I'm not patient....

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

He never said it was only the cooler.

There are many contributing factors to clock limits.

Hi Mike, do you have the same IP as Razor1? You seem to creepily back him up. And those PMs you've been sending me are kind of weird.

 

[razor1]

I know what a wild eyed optimist is and not many of us expected 4.5 on air on all 8 cores. I certainly did not.But it is conceivable to me that 4.1 8 core overclock may be obtainable on air on the best of air coolers. On water up to 4.3 GHZ. I am not going to speculate more than that. We will have to see some comprehensive reviews on 2/28 to know more definitely. I will be highly satisfied if my guesstimate is accurate and elated if it is actualily a little higher. I can't conceive of it being less than my conservative estimate.

Good point, but gotta remember when Intel was on 14nm for the first time they had some issues with clocks and most processes from 32nm till now, have been more problematic ever node lower when it comes to clocks, yields, etc. And it took more time to straighten out those problems then previous generations to boot.

Intel's first chips on 14nm were Skylake and Broadwell, and we saw the poor overclocking of Skylake and Broadwell initially, which is all about the process maturity. Later on we saw that change quite a bit.

 

[razor1]

I really hope the reviewers have samples right now (and that NDA lifts next week instead of the week after), cause I'm really keen on what XFR really does. Is it marketing? Is it something cool? Is it comparable to something Intel already has?

Sigh. I'm not patient....

Well can't do much just have to wait , any how, XFR I think is just automated overclocking, if the chips capable of it and the temps are in the right target zones in the different regions of the chip, it goes ahead and overclocks.

 

[lolfail9001]

Heard something about XFR?

Nothing exact, but The Stilt seems to heavily imply that common theory about auto overclocking is wrong. And if we are to interpret name literally, then Intel's unlocked CPUs do have.... extended frequency range. I would not be surprised if it was another marketing spin that is about to backfire at this point.

Intel's first chips on 14nm was Skylake and Broadwell, and we saw the poor overclocking of Skylake and Broadwell initially

Nah, Skylake OCd decently from the get go. Broadwell had and still has clock issues though.

 

[razor1]

err always though Skylake had overclocking issues maybe I got it mixed up with something else.

Well if XFR is like extended frequency range that will interesting......

sorry not extended frequency range, Intel's tech boosts only specific cores. So that is what you are saying

I'm not sure if that is even good for Ryzen but have to wait and see. I can see issues with SMT with that. Maybe that is why, they don't have it enabled on all chips? Only enthusiasts.

Damn it trying to find that patent, wish AMD used a different acronym other than SMT :/

 

[lolfail9001]

So that is what you are saying

No, i mean, having ability to set multiplier in 12-64 range on K SKUs IS extended frequency range in comparison to default base-max turbo range.

And that is my concern.

 

[bobzdar]

They are shying way from it because they don't want to show it agaisnt anything other than chips that are close to it. And that is also because their SMT is more capable than Intel's hyperthreading so by showing Blender and Handbrake being close to Broadwell, their IPC will be more like Haswell, with the extra 12 % or so advantage they with SMT equalizes those tests.

They sure talked a shit load about perf/watt with Polaris, but that was when they had no clue about Pascal, then after that did Polaris's perf/watt look good?

Also they didn't even compare their perf/watt to pascal after seeing it either. They also stopped talking about against Maxwell too! P11 demo was before Pascal launch, after that, no more talking about P11's perf/watt against Maxwell.

1800x is 3.6 with 4.0 boost at 95 watts that is correct, XFR will need more cooling.

And that is what I stated, looks to be thermals that is holding back the frequency.

I'm also talking about base clocks above 4.0 not boost or XFR. That was clear from the start. I've always stated base clocks. And that is what the other guy is talking about too, BASE clocks of 4.0 I don't think is going to be possible without water cooling. So boost clocks of 4.4 and XFR range above that.

So you're saying base 4.0 with water cooling? I'm thinking 3.8 with xfr (per above), 4.0 with manual tweaking and 4.2 on water,but again WAG. Given Intel is at 4.9 in similar conditions (at least on a 4 core) it's going to be a bit behind in single threaded apps but if their smt performance is real and you get 2 more cores for the same price on top of it...

What's interesting to me is that unlike Intel,the highest clocks are on the highest core counts, so it won't be apples to apples. You can get 4.9-5 on a quad Intel,but the 8 core parts are lower where amd is opposite (at least stock). So what's the comparison? And is amd missing a beat by not releasing a 95w quad with 3.8-4.0 base? Or can it just not do it?

 

[SighTurtle]

Nothing exact, but The Stilt seems to heavily imply that common theory about auto overclocking is wrong. And if we are to interpret name literally, then Intel's unlocked CPUs do have.... extended frequency range. I would not be surprised if it was another marketing spin that is about to backfire at this point.

Nah, Skylake OCd decently from the get go. Broadwell had and still has clock issues though.

How does The Stilt know so much anyway?

 

[GroundZero]

Doesn't matter what coolers, or anything like that. Overclocking has much more to do with what a chip is designed for, how it was designed, and node, and what that node is capable of. Everything matters. Once we have more info on the motherboard, we can get a clear picture of how much the max power draw will be on Ryzen.

So just because Phenom II can draw 160 watts on air doesn't mean Ryzen can.

And there has been no confirmation that 4.5 ghz has been done on air yet, quite the contrary rumors are above 4.0 ghz base clocks, water is necessary on most chips. If you are talking about max boost clocks of 4.5, yeah I might be able see that happening, not base clocks of 4.5 on air.

You didn't contradict anything I said, or offer any relevant arguments in your favor.

Yes coolers matter, that's why they make them. Sure a bad process will still be a bad process..but there is no evidence that Ryzen will not OC well.

I really don't care about confirmation at this stage. There are 2 "unconfirmed" reports of 1400X, and 1600X hitting 4.5 with the 125w cooler. And that professional overclocker's reports of startling performance that were confirmed by motherboard manufacturers.

The top end motherboards will be able to push 200W+ just like all the rest.

You don't leave Turbo on with an OC...it doesn't end well.

If clocks above 4ghz require water cooling.....yea you lost me there. Credibility 0

 

[Gideon]

Good point, but gotta remember when Intel was on 14nm for the first time they had some issues with clocks and most processes from 32nm till now, have been more problematic ever node lower when it comes to clocks, yields, etc. And it took more time to straighten out those problems then previous generations to boot.

Intel's first chips on 14nm were Skylake and Broadwell, and we saw the poor overclocking of Skylake and Broadwell initially, which is all about the process maturity. Later on we saw that change quite a bit.

Did you just take Intels issues with their first 14nm chips and say AMD would have the same issues even tho AMD is using a different process. Come on man your better then that. Just cause Intel didn't get it perfect the first time out does not mean AMD will suffer the same issues and to be honest Intel didn't struggle that much out of the gate anyway. Way too many differences to just toss that out there and expect it to stick. I expect 4.4 to be about as high as Ryzen will go on a 8 core and 4.3 and lower more likely, but who knows.

 

[razor1]

You didn't contradict anything I said, or offer any relevant arguments in your favor.

Yes coolers matter, that's why they make them. Sure a bad process will still be a bad process..but there is no evidence that Ryzen will not OC well.

I really don't care about confirmation at this stage. There are 2 "unconfirmed" reports of 1400X, and 1600X hitting 4.5 with the 125w cooler. And that professional overclocker's reports of startling performance that were confirmed by motherboard manufacturers.

The top end motherboards will be able to push 200W+ just like all the rest.

You don't leave Turbo on with an OC...it doesn't end well.

If clocks above 4ghz require water cooling.....yea you lost me there. Credibility 0

who stated anything about a bad process? What is your definition of bad process? How would AMD classify a "bad process" or any company for that matter.

can you link me to the unconfirmed reports? And this professional overclockers' reports of confirmed, if you are talking about the stuff above, that has nothing to do with overclocking (at least not what type of overclocking the person did).

What are you talking about base clocks or boost clocks?

They can't push 200 watts through the CPU socket unless you do some crazy shit to em. I can only think of like 5 or 6 motherboards even for BD that did 200 watts or actually 220 watts through a socket without any type of modifications by the end user.

Top end motherboards can do 200+ whats for all the components that are attached to them not just the CPU!

 

[razor1]

Did you just take Intels issues with their first 14nm chips and say AMD would have the same issues even tho AMD is using a different process. Come on man your better then that. Just cause Intel didn't get it perfect the first time out does not mean AMD will suffer the same issues and to be honest Intel didn't struggle that much out of the gate anyway. Way too many differences to just toss that out there and expect it to stick. I expect 4.4 to be about as high as Ryzen will go on a 8 core and 4.3 and lower more likely, but who knows.

I'm not saying the same issues, I'm saying there could be issues like that.

If AMD is having problems validating their lower core count chips at higher clocks, because that would be very advantageous to them to compete against Kaby Lake i7's, there has to a be a reason, I'm not sure if its something to do with the architecture or with the node.

Just think about it, if AMD was able to get to 4.0 ghz base clock on their 4 core chips and validate those chips for that base clock, they would be able to force Intel into just about anything. That will hurt Intel more than just the enthusiast market of the x99, that will put pressure on all of Intel's products.

Not only that, then pricing of Ryzen can be lifted up, that will give AMD more margins, they don't need to price as high as Intel but 10 % higher then the prices we see now (rumors) and then segmenting the 8 core Ryzens as the best option by getting system prices down with less expensive motherboards than Intel's x series, the options AMD would have to start shifting the market to their favor would change dramatically.

The flexibility AMD would have will give Intel headaches of that was the case, it wouldn't be a simple price war on equal footing CPU's any more,

 

[lolfail9001]

How does The Stilt know so much anyway?

Well, he is a God, after all. Anyways, there has to be a catch with such pricing on 8 cores.

 

[GroundZero]

who stated anything about a bad process? What is your definition of bad process? How would AMD classify a "bad process" or any company for that matter.

can you link me to the unconfirmed reports? And this professional overclockers' reports of confirmed, if you are talking about the stuff above, that has nothing to do with overclocking (at least not what type of overclocking the person did).

What are you talking about base clocks or boost clocks?

They can't push 200 watts through the CPU socket unless you do some crazy shit to em. I can only think of like 5 or 6 motherboards even for BD that did 200 watts or actually 220 watts through a socket without any type of modifications by the end user.

We are talking about weather or not Ryzen overclocks well. If it doesn't then in that context it would be a bad process.

Follow Reddit, or the Semiaccurate thread, or the Ananandtech thread. They all have posted those. It seems that you are arguing without doing due diligence.

My POS Asrock 970 pushes 150w with aftermarket VRM sinks.

There aren't boost clocks with a standard OC. You push it to the edge of stability and then back off a bit. What would turbo accomplish?

 

[razor1]

We are talking about weather or not Ryzen overclocks well. If it doesn't then in that context it would be a bad process.

Follow Reddit, or the Semiaccurate thread, or the Ananandtech thread. They all have posted those. It seems that you are arguing without doing due diligence.

My POS Asrock 970 pushes 150w with aftermarket VRM sinks.

There aren't boost clocks with a standard OC. You push it to the edge of stability and then back off a bit. What would turbo accomplish?

links please!

I'm asking for the links since you know where they are lol.

So you needed aftermarket coolers for VRM's well as I stated.....

150 through the CPU socket? which for that CPU you have I think sounds reasonable.