New Ryzen 2 (Pinnacle Ridge) gets only 200 MHz boost according to a leak

It seems quite strange that when x470 is supposed to also launch that they'd be using the lowest end chipset with a severely outdated bios to test.

CPC Hardware already explained why are using A320 instead X370/X470: To avoid the omnipresent cheats in the X370/X470's BIOS ("Pour éviter les cheats à la con omniprésents dans les BIOS des X370/X470").

The overclockingmadeinfrance magazine also mentions that using a 400-series mobo wouldn't really change the performance or efficiency results, performance would change only 1 or 2% top maximum ("Cela ne change pas beaucoup les performances, 1 à 2% grand maximum").
 
It seems quite strange that when x470 is supposed to also launch that they'd be using the lowest end chipset with a severely outdated bios to test.

probably because they got their hands on the processor through a third party source but couldn't get a motherboard so they just used what they had available to them that would actually support the processor. as far as the AGESA 1.0.0.1a bios that's the official first version of the zen+ bios which pretty much all the manufactures switched to with their most recent bios releases for the 3x0 series. why they reset it instead of calling it 2.0.0.1 i don't know.
 
probably because they got their hands on the processor through a third party source but couldn't get a motherboard so they just used what they had available to them that would actually support the processor. as far as the AGESA 1.0.0.1a bios that's the official first version of the zen+ bios which pretty much all the manufactures switched to with their most recent bios releases for the 3x0 series. why they reset it instead of calling it 2.0.0.1 i don't know.

Thanks for the explanation of the bizarre numbering scheme choice.
 
Sure, the failure is on this guy and on CPChardware,... it is not because 12LP sucks. :rolleyes:
 
Sure, the failure is on this guy and on CPChardware,... it is not because 12LP sucks. :rolleyes:

CPCHardware tested a shitty configuration, and I don't know this guy from Adam. Kyle will be able to tell us. Him I trust.

If he says 4.25GHz is the max, I'll be the first to say 2700X blows filthy buttchunks. Until then... we wait.
 
CPCHardware tested a shitty configuration, and I don't know this guy from Adam. Kyle will be able to tell us. Him I trust.

If he says 4.25GHz is the max, I'll be the first to say 2700X blows filthy buttchunks. Until then... we wait.

I mean, 4.0 all core was the max [H] got on the 1800x (and is the usual all core max oc for stable operation), so why would 4.25 be a huge disappointment? I'm guessing 4.3, but I'm curious what will be available in terms of precision boost/xfr2 tweaking. If we can reprofile (p-state o/c) to 4.3 all core turbo and 4.5-4.6 dual core boost speed while maintaining the precision boost curve, it would absolutely be a good jump.
 
I mean, 4.0 all core was the max [H] got on the 1800x (and is the usual all core max oc for stable operation), so why would 4.25 be a huge disappointment? I'm guessing 4.3, but I'm curious what will be available in terms of precision boost/xfr2 tweaking. If we can reprofile (p-state o/c) to 4.3 all core turbo and 4.5-4.6 dual core boost speed while maintaining the precision boost curve, it would absolutely be a good jump.

If Kyle gets ~4.4GHz or more, I'll consider it a worthwhile process improvement. If not... people can get 4.1-4.2 out of existing Ryzens on water, and with some silicon lottery. Hell, mine boots at 4.15 - hot and not at all stable, but it boots.
 
Lol. I can *almost* get 4.2 - even if unstable as all hell - out of this 1700X. Either that guy sucks at OC, or the 2700X is basically zero clockspeed improvement.

Still, let's wait for the [H] assessment first.

4.3 is an arbitrary number. 1946 on CB is the number that actually matters. That is significantly higher than even the highest clocked R7s.

Also, I doubt he pushed his chip nearly as hard as you did yours.
 
4.3 is an arbitrary number. 1946 on CB is the number that actually matters. That is significantly higher than even the highest clocked R7s.

Also, I doubt he pushed his chip nearly as hard as you did yours.

True on the CB score.

As for my chip, I wound up dialing back to 4GHz for daily operation. Anything else was just stupid. I was pushing way too much voltage into it.

Anyway, it's the [H]ard OC that will tell us if there is more potential in this chip or not. If Kyle gets 4.4 or so, I'd call it a nice jump up in clock speed. If not... well, there's always next year and Zen 2, I suppose.
 
True on the CB score.

As for my chip, I wound up dialing back to 4GHz for daily operation. Anything else was just stupid. I was pushing way too much voltage into it.

Anyway, it's the [H]ard OC that will tell us if there is more potential in this chip or not. If Kyle gets 4.4 or so, I'd call it a nice jump up in clock speed. If not... well, there's always next year and Zen 2, I suppose.

If you been following the rumours (Zen 2) that 7nm is going to end up with TSMC and should have some more room for improvements. There are always overclocks but if it is the same as the 1000 series then it certainly is not worth losing any sleep over.
 
Aren't the reduced latencies, and higher memory speed support far more important than pure clockspeed at this point?
 
Aren't the reduced latencies, and higher memory speed support far more important than pure clockspeed at this point?
I'd say equally important--you see more gains if you increase both at the same time than if you increase either individually, at least once you approach the limit.
 
4.3 is an arbitrary number. 1946 on CB is the number that actually matters. That is significantly higher than even the highest clocked R7s.

Also, I doubt he pushed his chip nearly as hard as you did yours.

Cinebench MT test takes the highest all core state so it can be hard to tell
 
Aren't the reduced latencies, and higher memory speed support far more important than pure clockspeed at this point?

Don't forget that the whole latency debate is somewhat one sided introduced by a certain person which I won't mention and in general some of the benchmarks might reflect a better position towards the better latencies but in reality it will only be a factor where you push this rather then in everything because it will go faster due to it but if there is no dependency on it it falls short on overall performance.

The memory speed can make a difference, that does not mean it will always make a difference, for gaming yes it prolly will.

If Zen+ would get performance on all 8 cores of 4.5+ GHZ (overclocked) this would make a difference where you would no longer have to take a look anywhere else performance wise(providing it does not go stupid on power consumption).
 
CPC Hardware already explained why are using A320 instead X370/X470: To avoid the omnipresent cheats in the X370/X470's BIOS ("Pour éviter les cheats à la con omniprésents dans les BIOS des X370/X470").

The overclockingmadeinfrance magazine also mentions that using a 400-series mobo wouldn't really change the performance or efficiency results, performance would change only 1 or 2% top maximum ("Cela ne change pas beaucoup les performances, 1 à 2% grand maximum").

So should we be benchmarking 8700k's on the new H310 boards to avoid the "omnipresent cheats" in Z370 of enabling MCE? That's what I hear you saying...
 
So should we be benchmarking 8700k's on the new H310 boards to avoid the "omnipresent cheats" in Z370 of enabling MCE? That's what I hear you saying...

0422.jpg
 
So should we be benchmarking 8700k's on the new H310 boards to avoid the "omnipresent cheats" in Z370 of enabling MCE? That's what I hear you saying...

People asked why CPC used a A320. I am simply quoting the reason they give.

My position has not varied since last months. Compare stock vs stock or autooverclock vs autooverclock.
 
People asked why CPC used a A320. I am simply quoting the reason they give.

My position has not varied since last months. Compare stock vs stock or autooverclock vs autooverclock.

And my position hasn't changed either...MCE isn't an auto-overclock no matter how much you want it to be considered as such.

Case in point...I have this nice new i5-8400 I bought to play around with. I have to MANUALLY go into the bios and enable MCE.
 
And my position hasn't changed either...MCE isn't an auto-overclock no matter how much you want it to be considered as such.

Case in point...I have this nice new i5-8400 I bought to play around with. I have to MANUALLY go into the bios and enable MCE.
But did you buy the motherboard because of MCE?
 
That is the excuse those days, but they measured higher power consumption at 3GHz and 1.00V for Zen+ than for Zen in the same board. So people better start looking for another excuse.


Makes no sense. Take three samples of an 1800x put them at 3ghz @ 1.00v and you also will have a variation. In your world, every chip is treated the same. Maybe AMD should take one chip from the center of the wafer and discard the rest to make you happy. Oh wait, you won't be happy, you will move on to another negative. You seriously need to drop this crap. Its old and its borderline trolling.
 
That is the excuse those days, but they measured higher power consumption at 3GHz and 1.00V for Zen+ than for Zen in the same board. So people better start looking for another excuse.

It's not a configuration anyone would actually build in the real world, unless stupid. I'm sorry, juanrga, but it's just not a good test. Now, I don't seriously expect a huge jump in performance from the proper configuration, mind you. But the point is, it wasn't done right. Kyle will do it right, that should be good enough for you or anyone else around here.
 
Makes no sense. Take three samples of an 1800x put them at 3ghz @ 1.00v and you also will have a variation. In your world, every chip is treated the same.

We know what is a population, but thanks for trying.

It's not a configuration anyone would actually build in the real world, unless stupid. I'm sorry, juanrga, but it's just not a good test. Now, I don't seriously expect a huge jump in performance from the proper configuration, mind you. But the point is, it wasn't done right. Kyle will do it right, that should be good enough for you or anyone else around here.

Irrelevant if it is a configuration you would use yourself or not. The performance gap of the tested configuration compared to one based in stock X370/X470 is only 1--2%. The only real difference would be on overclocking (6--8%), but since CPC didn't test overclock, their review is relevant for non-overclockers.
 
And my position hasn't changed either...MCE isn't an auto-overclock no matter how much you want it to be considered as such.

Case in point...I have this nice new i5-8400 I bought to play around with. I have to MANUALLY go into the bios and enable MCE.

It is an automatic overclock independently of if it has to be enabled manually in the BIOS or not. The problem wasn't on the boards that don't have it activated by default. The problem was on those board that have it activated by default. Some people claims those boards with default MCE are cheating, others disagree and claim it is a bonus.

It is a kind of irrelevant debate to me. I don't care if you consider those enhancements as "performance bonus" or as "cheats". What I want is products compared in similar configurations: stock vs stock or overclock vs overclock.
 
...their review is relevant for non-overclockers.

Two points.

Point 1: this is [H]ard. No OC? Lololol.
Point 2: it's not even a good stocker configuration. You say 1-2% difference. I say maybe you're right, maybe not. But we don't know until someone reviews it right.

Look man, you got two weeks to wait before you can legit start taking a dump on Zen+. Patience, my dude! Your time will come!
 
Two points.

Point 1: this is [H]ard. No OC? Lololol.
Point 2: it's not even a good stocker configuration. You say 1-2% difference. I say maybe you're right, maybe not. But we don't know until someone reviews it right.

Look man, you got two weeks to wait before you can legit start taking a dump on Zen+. Patience, my dude! Your time will come!

The very few reviews out there on A320's seem to suggest they are more feature handicapped than performance handicapped with some supporting XFR. The massive offset is lost in connectivity and one major area of loss was network adapter performance and sound which is to be expected when you need to shave 100 dollars off a mainstream board.

4+3 Phase seems to work in this instance as the only clockable feature is the DRAM, that said I don't see value in a person buying a Ryzen 7 and 3200mhz RAM if the intention is to run a A320. All the reviews were really basic ones and seemed to be more there for the layman buyer. I honestly don't believe they are intended to handle 95W processors and needs a looking into throttling control to stop what is likely a very low quality 4 Phase VRM from going Skrrraaa pop.
 
Two points.

Point 1: this is [H]ard. No OC? Lololol.
Point 2: it's not even a good stocker configuration. You say 1-2% difference. I say maybe you're right, maybe not. But we don't know until someone reviews it right.

Look man, you got two weeks to wait before you can legit start taking a dump on Zen+. Patience, my dude! Your time will come!

1. [H]ard users will wait to [H] review to get OC performance. It doesn't change the performance of the chips on stock settings.

2. CPC Hardware claims 1--2% for 2000-series. Overclocking made in france claims 1--2% for 200-series. And Hardware.info shows 1--2% for 1800X. We know.
 
1. [H]ard users will wait to [H] review to get OC performance. It doesn't change the performance of the chips on stock settings.

Who said it did? Has anybody made that claim? That's a pretty useless thing to say. My point was, the OC performance matters to US. Not the stock performance on a sub-par build.

2. CPC Hardware claims 1--2% for 2000-series. Overclocking made in france claims 1--2% for 200-series. And Hardware.info shows 1--2% for 1800X. We know.

Well, you go ahead and trust the French, mang. Me? I'm waiting for someone else.
 
Random reddit guy who can't type/spell. Totally legit.

It is not only one random reddit guy, and don't mastering a foreign language means nothing about the OC abilities of Pinnacle Ridge.

We have now three or four different leaks pointing on the same dirrection. Of course, we have to wait to proper OC reviews, but this starts looking as a trend for Pinnacle Ridge. Recall earlier leaks for Zen showing a barrier about 4.0GHz and people being skeptic until reviews confirmed the barrier. People then expected miracles about 14LPP and some people seems now to expect miracles form 12LP.
 
It is not only one random reddit guy, and don't mastering a foreign language means nothing about the OC abilities of Pinnacle Ridge.

We have now three or four different leaks pointing on the same dirrection. Of course, we have to wait to proper OC reviews, but this starts looking as a trend for Pinnacle Ridge. Recall earlier leaks for Zen showing a barrier about 4.0GHz and people being skeptic until reviews confirmed the barrier. People then expected miracles about 14LPP and some people seems now to expect miracles form 12LP.

No one was expecting anything from Ryzen until CanardPC posted that they overclocked to 5ghz ...
 
No one was expecting anything from Ryzen until CanardPC posted that they overclocked to 5ghz ...

Not true. Back in 2015--2016 some people was expecting a range of 4.0--4.5GHz base clock for the 8-core 95W models and even superenthusiast 5GHz 8-core model (with TDP above 200W a la FX-Centurion) on 14LPP. That same people was now expecting >=10% higher base clocks and up to 4.8GHz stock boosts on 12LP:

I stand by my earlier predictions that Pinnacle Ridge will be atleast >=10% higher for base clocks and >=15% for max turbo wrt Summit Ridge.

The killer is going to be the turbo clocks. Do not be surprised to see max turbo of 4.7 4.8 Ghz. So AMD are not technically wrong with what they are saying. btw there is a concept called sandbagging which AMD has already done with Zen.
 
Not true. Back in 2015--2016 some people was expecting a range of 4.0--4.5GHz base clock for the 8-core 95W models and even superenthusiast 5GHz 8-core model (with TDP above 200W a la FX-Centurion) on 14LPP. That same people was now expecting >=10% higher base clocks and up to 4.8GHz stock boosts on 12LP:

Ok, sources on the 'some people'. Are these real 'people' or just voices you thought you heard in 2016. As far as I know on this forum, no person has said they expected the Ryzen refresh to boost up to 4.8ghz, 12LP or not. From the quotes (albeit no sources with those) they seem like your posts. So what you are saying is that you expected a certain level of performance (unrealistic as it may be) and the last generation Ryzen chips didn't deliver on those unrealistic goals. Well, for may outlandish 'prediction' I expect the Icy Lake processors from Intel to be 100ghz without removing the asbestos based TIM Intel likes to use on their chips.
 
Back
Top