# Ryzen benchmarking and overclocking results



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

My little Ryzen review.







To start off I am overall very impressed with the product, however the thing that left me angry was the feeling that it was released before it was done. To start things off I had a retail sample board and CPU no ES markings just retail style, but the CPU and board arrived pre-used and updated to a newer BIOS than what ships to the retail market.











Couple of distinct things to notice here the new bracket for AM4 works just fine with the older AM3 coolers that use the normal mounting style. I went ahead and tested this with the older generation Wraith cooler.






However it turns out the Asus is way ahead of that and has double drilled the board for AM3's older style. Just a heads up using the other hole set is a bit particular with coolers. The height is not the same so I ran into an issue when using EK's waterblock where if you tighten the fasteners more than one to two turns the system would not post. Be very careful when selecting coolers for these systems and if it doesn't post back the screws out.






Finished product yielded excellent temperatures. Under load the CPU did not exceed 61C with an overclock on both the CPU and GPU. This is using the standard EK 280 kit with a couple modifications, using the shorter reservoir to clear the card and downgraded the fans for LED Thermaltake rings. There is next to no noise produced and the BIOS is set to extreme silence.

















Now onto the actual usage of the parts. I went ahead and stuck to the normal batch of benchmarks found on hwbot. Performance was all done at my maximum stable clock of 4075mhz@1.475v, ram@3200 18-17-17-29 1T. Maximum temperatures again were 61C during all of the testing and maximum power pulled at the wall for the whole system under CPU only testing was 260w.




































Getting this unit stable is what brings me to the "unfinished product" belief the BIOS was nothing short of a joke. I have played with some pre-release ECS products that had a more complete BIOS than this does. Half of the settings wouldn't save and the first board I had just up and died on me. This led to the swap to an actual retail board that wouldn't post until it was flashed using the Asus crash free utility. Currently the only useful BIOS I have found is 0601 and 0702 I wouldn't bother with any of the others.

It is a common issue to set something in the BIOS have it reboot and appear to be at that setting in the BIOS and end up in windows at stock settings. This is especially true with the ram. The ram on this is just a joke it is lacking all tertiary timing control and of the timings that were provided Cas Latency doesn't even work. If you set the ram speed expect to change it to one lower, reboot and then set what you actually wanted otherwise it will stick at 2133mhz.

After all of that nonsense I was lucky to know chew* who lovingly informed me of the memory hole that exists for 3200-3600mhz. That fixed a handful of stability problems I was having and led to my final choice of clocks (40.75x100). I had been testing the unit at 40.25x101 prior. I went as far as 362x for memory speed at 18-19-19-39 1T which is the rating of this kit, it would not stay stable in super pi 32m so it isn't worth really noting outside of one strange little thing. Remember when I said I was using a "retail sample" CPU? Well the actual retail CPU I grabbed which was a 3 week newer chip actually couldn't even POST with the ram at 36xx. That CPU was set aside and all testing was completed on the original sample provided.

I have provided a handful of 3dmark Firestrike runs as well each run was done once with the GPU at stock and once with the GPU overclocked. All GPU overclocked runs had the GPU boosting to 2138mhz on the core and ram at 2250. Maximum load temp on the GPU was 45C, maximum power consumed was 370w at the wall for the full system.































My overall impression of the platform is wait a few weeks for the kinks to be pushed out. Right now it is not ready for retail sales in my opinion. Performance however was excellent. All of the chips regardless of model seem to clock the same, so save a couple bucks and grab the R7 1700 and use that saved money for a good cooler.



Also big thanks to chew* on XS as per usual he was able to walk me through some difficulties I had with the new product.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 2, 2017)

when does this thing lift... its 12:50 here already


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 2, 2017)

If i wanted to be teased i'd go to a strip club. NOW SHOW ME THE GOODS!!!!

*slips you a 20


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

This picture lacks anything I shouldn't be able to show you, so here is the build, just in case anyone is curious








phanbuey said:


> when does this thing lift... its 12:50 here already



9AM CT


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 2, 2017)

Did you guys set this up in the kitchen? i see diet cokes and a keurig.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 2, 2017)

Nice Infinity case


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> If i wanted to be teased i'd go to a strip club. NOW SHOW ME THE GOODS!!!!
> 
> 
> *slips you a 20








There is a tease for you...LOL



phanbuey said:


> Did you guys set this up in the kitchen? i see diet cokes and a keurig.



Lol no those are basic necessities to work in any place.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 2, 2017)

OH MAH ... them is some fresh files... 3/2 @ 12:49...  You're still writing it up!

YOU ARE WRITING THIS FROM THE RYZEN!


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> OH MAH ... them is some fresh files... 3/2 @ 12:49...  You're still writing it up!



To be fair I just resized all the photos and it messed with the date/time.


----------



## rougal (Mar 2, 2017)

Nice Case. Tell me about the mobo and RAM speed at least.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

rougal said:


> Nice Case. Tell me about the mobo and RAM speed at least.



It is using a Crosshair/LPX 3600 kit.


----------



## Totally (Mar 2, 2017)

At least most of you don't have it as bad I do. I got my 1700x today, but the motherboard just shipped a few hours ago and I won't see it until the seventh


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Mar 2, 2017)

Can't wait to see the OC results you've got. Hopefully I will be able to OC mine a bit more than 4Ghz


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Mar 2, 2017)

This might be a lame question, but is 650w (my psu in my info)enough for my gpu AANNND ryzen?


----------



## Melvis (Mar 2, 2017)

Subbed, and Im guessing your using a 1800X?


----------



## buildzoid (Mar 2, 2017)

NDA lifts at 9AM can't rember what time zone


----------



## erocker (Mar 2, 2017)

Says 9AM CT. Central Time?


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Mar 2, 2017)

Damn this NDA thing...in here is almost 9 now )


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Mar 2, 2017)

Have I got time to go buy popcorn?


----------



## RCoon (Mar 2, 2017)

I believe the NDA lifts in 3 1/2 hours?


----------



## MustSeeMelons (Mar 2, 2017)

Haven't been this curios about a CPU since forever, the first platform launch I'm actually following along! It will be 5PM here when NDA finally lifts.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 2, 2017)

RCoon said:


> I believe the NDA lifts in 3 1/2 hours?


Damn, that's midnight here, I'll be in bed by then.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 2, 2017)

What we've seen so far of overclocking and memory speed/bandwidth has been pretty underwhelming but I'll be thrilled to see that swing the other way once the NDA lifts. So far my workstation build is leaning back towards Intel which is going to cost me much more money so fingers crossed for Ryzen here.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 2, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> Damn, that's midnight here, I'll be in bed by then.



Ryzen will come and tuck you in...


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Mar 2, 2017)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> What we've seen so far of overclocking and memory speed/bandwidth has been pretty underwhelming but I'll be thrilled to see that swing the other way once the NDA lifts. So far my workstation build is leaning back towards Intel which is going to cost me much more money so fingers crossed for Ryzen here.



Memory bandwidth efficiency is looking sick tho... Ryzen seems to be touching near theoretical bandwidth performance according to some leaks (iirc it was 95% for ryzen vs 75% for kaby lake).


----------



## X828 (Mar 2, 2017)

It's like Christmas all over again.


----------



## Komshija (Mar 2, 2017)

Some results already leaked and they seem like a very good start for AMD. However, I wonder how two Ryzen candidates stack up against Core i7 6700K. Specifically, I'm interested about the results of Ryzen 5 1400X and Ryzen 5 1600X against i7 6700K in various benchmarks, from CPU-Z, Uniengine, Cinebench R15, video conversion etc. I do know that Ryzen 5 1600X will outgun i7 6700K in some multi-thread benchmarks, including in CPU-Z MT.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 2, 2017)

Its gonna be Bulldozer all over again I bet.


----------



## VulkanBros (Mar 2, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its gonna be Bulldozer all over again I bet.



Then I suggest a full frontal assault with automated laser monkeys, scalpel mines and acid.......


----------



## Komshija (Mar 2, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its gonna be Bulldozer all over again I bet.


 We'll see; but according to a few available benchmarks, they are better than Intel's competition in MT while remaining relatively close in ST operations.


----------



## VulkanBros (Mar 2, 2017)

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,24.html


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 2, 2017)

So far it looks like you're lucky to get over 4.1GHz


----------



## infrared (Mar 2, 2017)

I'm patiently waiting for my stuff to arrive, I'm guessing it'll be tomorrow now though :/ I got my hopes up that it might arrive today.

I'm looking forward to seeing everyone's results, I'll post mine up when I can


----------



## Assimilator (Mar 2, 2017)

Diet Coke? Lightweight... 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170...-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700



			
				AnandTech said:
			
		

> For the multitude of tests where that $499 1800X is able to match or beat a $1049 i7-6900K, it directly translates to a 2x in price/performance.



AMD has done it. Ryzen's performance may not smack Intel out of the ballpark, but it's faster than Sandy and Ivy Bridge while being cheaper than the competition. The R5 Ryzens are gonna be sweet.


----------



## erek (Mar 2, 2017)

Very disappointing 1080p Gaming performance: "On the three game titles we tested with, the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X showed somewhat disappointing results."


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 2, 2017)

So, not quite for gaming? With an RGB cooler? Who would've thought?


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 2, 2017)

*Don't know if this link has been posted yet or not...

"The AMD Ryzen 7: plenty of power, but underwhelming gaming performance"

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/*


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

Original post updated with pictures and benchmarks.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 2, 2017)

From what I see from official reviews -

1. Performance is on par with leaks.
2. So so for gaming.
3. Meh OCer.
4. Very good productivity performance ( Results other than gaming)

Finally, price per performance is 2x better than Intel as it stands.


----------



## erek (Mar 2, 2017)

The very lackluster gaming performance may very likely hurt AMD quite badly


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

erek said:


> The very lackluster gaming performance may very likely hurt AMD quite badly



Wait for the lower core count products. This isn't a top clocked item, the efficiency they provide in multithreading makes them a better choice as more titles move to vulkan/DX12 regardless of model purchased and they are offering such a huge jump over the FX series it isn't even funny. Saying these offer a lackluster gaming performance means quite simply that X99 offers NO gaming performance at all since at stock I do not believe there is a single 2011v3 or v4 CPU that offers better performance in most games. Certainly the 6900K and 6950X are trash in this situation as well with their lower clockspeed and worse performing multithreaded IPC.

This isn't a 5ghz quad core product. This is a slower running 8 core model. If all you want to do is game than wait for AMD to drop the quad and six core parts and see how they clock. As it stands now we are looking at a 5-20FPS difference at 1080P not exactly a deal breaker for most going from 140FPS to 120FPS. There are also games when that is reversed and AMD offers MORE performance, yet those games aren't mentioned.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Mar 2, 2017)

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...g-workstation-chip-1080p-gaming-achilles-heel


----------



## londiste (Mar 2, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Wait for the lower core count products. This isn't a top clocked item, the efficiency they provide in multithreading makes them a better choice as more titles move to vulkan/DX12 regardless of model purchased and they are offering such a huge jump over the FX series it isn't even funny. Saying these offer a lackluster gaming performance means quite simply that X99 offers NO gaming performance at all since at stock I do not believe there is a single 2011v3 or v4 CPU that offers better performance in most games. Certainly the 6900K and 6950X are trash in this situation as well with their lower clockspeed and worse performing multithreaded IPC.


are we reading the same reviews? 6900k/6950x ipc is better by around 8% in cinebench which is a very strong point for ryzen. ryzen is behind more in other tests. intel's chips lose that advantage and some more in multithreaded which suggests amd has done something very right in their smt implementation.

ryzen has incredible amount of raw power. it performs better than intel counterparts in cinebench, handbrake, pov-ray and blender.
unfortunately, not in much else. equal and competitive but not better.
gaming is clearly the weakest aspect.

1800x vs 6900k is the much-touted comparison but only in terms of perf/$. performance of both isn't that different.
1700 is the one with most clear niche here and undoubtedly will be most popular. same price as 7700k, more cores.
the most interesting fighting par should be 1700x vs 6800k, same price and judging by current reviews, gap in performance is not as large as expected.

latest bits of information we have on ryzen 3/5 says their clock speeds will not go higher than ryzen 7-s, topping out at 4.0 or just above that.

in most reviews where overclocking (simple and with air cooling) is attempted, 1700/1700x/1800x all end up between 4.0-4.1 ghz. especially with that in mind, 1700 sounds like the best of the bunch, especially with perf/$ in mind.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

londiste said:


> are we reading the same reviews? 6900k/6950x ipc is better by around 8% in cinebench which is a very strong point for ryzen. ryzen is behind more in other tests. intel's chips lose that advantage and some more in multithreaded which suggests amd has done something very right in their smt implementation.



Please actually read what I wrote. I bolded the section you appear to have misunderstood.



cdawall said:


> Saying these offer a lackluster gaming performance means quite simply that X99 offers NO gaming performance at all since at stock I do not believe there is a single 2011v3 or v4 CPU that offers better performance in most games. Certainly the 6900K and 6950X are trash in this situation as well with their lower clockspeed and worse *performing multithreaded IPC.*





londiste said:


> ryzen has incredible amount of raw power. it performs better than intel counterparts in cinebench, handbrake, pov-ray and blender.
> unfortunately, not in much else. gaming being the weakest aspect.



Most of those FPS issues went away when a forced clock was applied. I didn't run into the lower FPS issues myself after forcing the chip to 4ghz instead of turbo.


----------



## m0nt3 (Mar 2, 2017)

If your a gamer and a streamer, it is very compelling vs the 7700k.  It is still a drastic improvement over the FX series and it is a completely new uArch so there will be teething issues with UEFI and OS kernels.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 2, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Certainly the 6900K and 6950X are trash in this situation


The 6950x actually tends to trade blows with the 7700k across pretty much all the reviews I've seen.



cdawall said:


> There are also games when that is reversed and AMD offers MORE performance, yet those games aren't mentioned.


The gaming reviews have been quite soft on Ryzen frankly. Same handful of games over and over again. I'm guessing ones recommended by AMD to reviewers.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Mar 2, 2017)

Great CPU for multi-threading...I am happy for AMD this is a great step forward, but this time I will say pass. I've canceled my pre-order as this will not be a great upgrade for me.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> The gaming reviews have been quite soft on Ryzen frankly. Same handful of games over and over again. I'm guessing ones recommended by AMD to reviewers.



I agree they have been a little lacking for titles, but the FPS difference still isn't something I am worried about. Especially since I do not game at 1080P...that being said I am not swapping away from my x99 build for this chip. It doesn't offer more performance in most applications than a high clocked broadwell-e. It also pains me to say, but "teething issues" doesn't describe how much of a pain in the ass it was getting that bastard up and going stable. BIOS issues out the ass and killing an entire board wasn't exactly my favorite couple of days.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 2, 2017)

There's clearly a bug affecting gaming. The reviews are all over the place even for the same game sometimes.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 2, 2017)

It is still beyond me why people expected a 16 thread under 4 Ghz chip to be adequate for gaming , you would think by now most people would have enough knowledge about these things , guess I was wrong.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 2, 2017)

I hate when I'm right. Bulldozer 2.0. Oh well back to Intel.


----------



## kruk (Mar 2, 2017)

Congratulations to AMDs engineering team. Although their budget is tiny, they managed to catch up to Intel. Amazing staff performance/price! 

I'm excited to see what will Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 with higher clocks bring. Additionally, all the launch bugs which affect performance should be squashed by then.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 2, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I hate when I'm right. Bulldozer 2.0. Oh well back to Intel.



Ignored 90% of the testing, eh?

Intel isn't paying you. What's the excuse?


----------



## sil3ntearth (Mar 2, 2017)

I have so many conflicting feelings about this computer.  Many hours went into trying to "overclock" it and squeak every little mhz out of both the CPU and RAM (which ended up being mostly fruitless).  The first motherboard BIOS updated itself and refused to turn back on.  The second one flat out refused to post out of the box without a BIOS update (stuck on code 55 with 3 different memory kits).  The first motherboard also had a ton of issue with voltage regulation as voltages seemed to be incredibly unstable. 

On the other hand, if you're looking for great out of the box multithreaded performance, especially in productivity software it's an amazing value.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I hate when I'm right. Bulldozer 2.0. Oh well back to Intel.



It beat my 5960x in the vast majority of benchmarks even with a 300mhz advantage to the 5960x. I can't remember a bulldozer chip that did that.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 2, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I agree they have been a little lacking for titles, but the FPS difference still isn't something I am worried about. Especially since I do not game at 1080P...that being said I am not swapping away from my x99 build for this chip. It doesn't offer more performance in most applications than a high clocked broadwell-e. It also pains me to say, but "teething issues" doesn't describe how much of a pain in the ass it was getting that bastard up and going stable. BIOS issues out the ass and killing an entire board wasn't exactly my favorite couple of days.



 I'd like to see what you can manage on a dual sided 4 stick setup. They're listing 1866mhz as recommended for that situation and that's below spec for every kit on the market. Makes it hard to know what to buy if you need 64GB kits.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 2, 2017)

I'd say wait out a little. The whole thing seems to be buggy.

Wait a month or two for bugs to iron out.

Or wait a year for everything to be smooth at which point you might want to see what Intel has.



cdawall said:


> It beat my 5960x in the vast majority of benchmarks even with a 300mhz advantage to the 5960x. I can't remember a bulldozer chip that did that.



FX sucked sooooo bad.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I'd like to see what you can manage on a dual sided 4 stick setup. They're listing 1866mhz as recommended for that situation and that's below spec for every kit on the market. Makes it hard to know what to buy if you need 64GB kits.



With all the issues I had just pushing 3600 with what I had I would doubt stability over 2400 with 4 double sided sticks.


----------



## sil3ntearth (Mar 2, 2017)

Yeah, this isn't at all remotely close to bulldozer 2.0.  From the start the FX chips were heaping piles of crap and remained that way.  These chips are fine, they just need some time to mature in terms of platform stability.


----------



## erek (Mar 2, 2017)

"Even though Ryzen redefines the performance available at a given price point for highly multithreaded applications, *gamers looking for a similar revolution from Ryzen are likely out of luck. *"


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 2, 2017)

erek said:


> "Even though Ryzen redefines the performance available at a given price point for highly multithreaded applications, *gamers looking for a similar revolution from Ryzen are likely out of luck. *"



What's really funny is I saw multiple scores where it wins at 1440+ lolz. I haven't played at 1080 in... 2 years?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 2, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> What's really funny is I saw multiple scores where it win at 1440+ lolz. I haven't played at 1080 in... 2 years?


I noticed it does seem to do better at higher res.


----------



## erek (Mar 2, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> What's really funny is I saw multiple scores where it wins at 1440+ lolz. I haven't played at 1080 in... 2 years?



1080p's where it's at, imho, i can't afford anything higher resolution, still on a 2011 era TN panel


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> What's really funny is I saw multiple scores where it wins at 1440+ lolz. I haven't played at 1080 in... 2 years?



A lot of gamers still play at 1080P. I can see the usage of the resolution, however going from 120 to 140 FPS... Who cares?


----------



## sil3ntearth (Mar 2, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> What's really funny is I saw multiple scores where it wins at 1440+ lolz. I haven't played at 1080 in... 2 years?



Unfortunately the majority of us are playing at 1080p.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 2, 2017)

1080p is where is majority of market is though.

And I am on 1080p.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 2, 2017)

erek said:


> 1080p's where it's at, imho, i can't afford anything higher resolution, still on a 2011 era TN panel



But are you using a gtx 1080?  

I'm waiting for announcement of bug.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 2, 2017)

cdawall said:


> A lot of gamers still play at 1080P. I can see the usage of the resolution, however going from 120 to 140 FPS... Who cares?



Tell that to people who claim that they can tell the difference between 51 fps and 53 fps.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Tell that to people who claim that they can tell the difference between 51 fps and 53 fps.



I normally tell them to turn the frame counter off.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 2, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I normally tell them to turn the frame counter off.



Indeed and you think they will listen? They might as well run a visual novel and won't notice as long as their frame counter is on.


----------



## kruk (Mar 2, 2017)

If you aren't satisfied with Ryzen 7 gaming performance at 1080p, buy a i7 or wait for Ryzen 5/3 with higher clocks. It's that simple ...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 2, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> Ignored 90% of the testing, eh?
> 
> Intel isn't paying you. What's the excuse?


I game and Ryzen sucks?


----------



## alucasa (Mar 2, 2017)

Either way, I am pretty sure -

*The end is nigh.*


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 2, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I game *at 1080p* and Ryzen sucks *at 1080p im almost all the gaming benchmarks*?



Amended that to be less troll and highly correct so far.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 2, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Amended that to be less troll and highly correct so far.


Sucking at lower res. means the processor is the bottleneck. In this case its Ryzen. Therefore if you are a gamer Ryzen sucks. Dunno why this is hard for people to understand. Ryzen was just hype as ALL AMD CPU's have been since Phenom.


----------



## erek (Mar 2, 2017)

I just stand by my choice to get a Xeon E5-2696 V3 18-core... seems to perform very well on X99 especially in Cinebench against all of those Intel and AMD mainstream processors and only cost me a net total for $450... I still have an upgrade path to the E5 2696 V4 22-core also


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 2, 2017)

It's settled, beating 6900k and 6950 sometimes is all hype. Nothing to see here, move along.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Sucking at lower res. means the processor is the bottleneck. In this case its Ryzen. Therefore if you are a gamer Ryzen sucks. Dunno why this is hard for people to understand. Ryzen was just hype as ALL AMD CPU's have been since Phenom.



I really wouldn't say this is hype. Vast majority of the leaks were correct and showed it multithreading like a champ with less single core IPC than a broadwell and later cpu.


----------



## Mike0409 (Mar 2, 2017)

sil3ntearth said:


> Unfortunately the majority of us are playing at 1080p.



honestly I think these are bugs that need to be ironed out.  In a couple of the reviews - they had to reach out to developers that said they are optimizing their code to support the new processor.  I believe Ashes of Singularity was one in particular.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

And just in case anyone is curious they make excellent box openers when the board dies on you the day before release.

You can say I was a little angry by this point.


----------



## erek (Mar 2, 2017)

my  Xeon E5-2696 V3 18-core for $450 (net) seems to be the better choice than all of those options in the mainstream so far, imho


----------



## Estaric (Mar 2, 2017)

Looks like a good cpu for the price thanks for the Images @cdawall


----------



## GhostRyder (Mar 2, 2017)

Well, from what I am reading its a good processor.  Not the best, but darn good.  Its not cause for me to trash my current system, but heck its one heck of a deal breaker when buying new stuff.  Want to see more overclocking results under water as I hope some can get the 1800X up to 4.4ghz but that sounds like a pipe dream.

Well, I hope the 6 cores and 4 cores overclock to 4.4 and beyond!


----------



## ShurikN (Mar 2, 2017)

Ran through a couple of reviews, and as a productivity chip its amazing. As far as gaming goes, it's competitive in DX12 titles and not so much in DX11. As the best of both worlds, I would probably wait for the top end 6c/12t part.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

GhostRyder said:


> Well, from what I am reading its a good processor.  Not the best, but darn good.  Its not cause for me to trash my current system, but heck its one heck of a deal breaker when buying new stuff.  Want to see more overclocking results under water as I hope some can get the 1800X up to 4.4ghz but that sounds like a pipe dream.
> 
> Well, I hope the 6 cores and 4 cores overclock to 4.4 and beyond!



Mines under water...


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Mar 2, 2017)

Regarding gaming performance what are they being benchmarked against from Intel? Ie latest 7700k or something else, is it just a case of the difference in clock speed between them or is Intel's IPC superior in gaming? On my phone so haven't been able to have an in depth read of any reviews as of yet


----------



## ShurikN (Mar 2, 2017)

"One thing I did notice is that all the games I have looked at so far -- which is considerably more than the four shown here -- were smooth on the Ryzen processors. GTA 5 for example plays really well on the Core i7-7700K, but every now and then a small stutter can be noticed, while the 1800X runs as smooth as silk, sans stuttering from what I observed.

I found a similar situation when testing Battlefield 1. Performance was smooth with the Ryzen processors while every now and then the quad-core 7700K had a small hiccup. These were rare but it was something I didn't notice when using the 1800X and 1700X. But as smooth as the experience was, it doesn't change the fact that gamers running a high refresh rate monitor may be better served by a higher clocked Core i7-6700K or 7700K.
"
Some interesting observations from the techspot review


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 2, 2017)

cdawall said:


> And just in case anyone is curious they make excellent box openers when the board dies on you the day before release.
> 
> You can say I was a little angry by this point.


That's a shitty ASUS mobo. I can relate.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 2, 2017)

long live socket 1366.........


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Mar 2, 2017)

you know, after all is said and done, I am still getting it. Yeah gaming performance sucks and I do play a lot of games but I also use Maya a lot which usually is CPU and RAM. I am still excited to get it today!


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 2, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> That's a shitty ASUS mobo. I can relate.



Yep, I ditched them.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 2, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Sucking at lower res. means the processor is the bottleneck. In this case its Ryzen. Therefore if you are a gamer Ryzen sucks. Dunno why this is hard for people to understand. Ryzen was just hype as ALL AMD CPU's have been since Phenom.



Still calling it "Bulldozer 2.0" is some level of excessive.

It's a "meh" not a "omaigod!"



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> long live socket 1366.........
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 84706



You do realize Ryzen wipes the floor with that...


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> Yep, I ditched them.



Best clocking board out right now with the best vrm section...


----------



## GhostRyder (Mar 2, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Mines under water...


Oh, so thats a negative then on more overclocking?  



cdawall said:


> Best clocking board out right now with the best vrm section...


It is?  What else was available (Just curious)?


ShurikN said:


> "One thing I did notice is that all the games I have looked at so far -- which is considerably more than the four shown here -- were smooth on the Ryzen processors. GTA 5 for example plays really well on the Core i7-7700K, but every now and then a small stutter can be noticed, while the 1800X runs as smooth as silk, sans stuttering from what I observed.
> 
> I found a similar situation when testing Battlefield 1. Performance was smooth with the Ryzen processors while every now and then the quad-core 7700K had a small hiccup. These were rare but it was something I didn't notice when using the 1800X and 1700X. But as smooth as the experience was, it doesn't change the fact that gamers running a high refresh rate monitor may be better served by a higher clocked Core i7-6700K or 7700K.
> "
> Some interesting observations from the techspot review


Yea I read that as well.  I am very curious because its rare but I have had BF1 randomly skip a beat.  Wonder if that's related.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 2, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> You do realize Ryzen wipes the floor with that...




I am disapoint.....i wanted to see some huge clockspeeds and higher IPC.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 2, 2017)

For me, I will wait out and see how things are going.

Since gaming aspect matters virtually none to me, I see Ryzen as a good CPU, and since it's rated at 95w TDP and outperforms E5-2683v3 (at 120w TDP), I certainly see the benefit here.

But seeing there are no wide selection of mATX and ITX, I am forced to wait. I won't go for ATX unless I go dual-socket.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 2, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I am disapoint.....i wanted to see some huge clockspeeds and higher IPC.



It seems to do IPC alright in certain things.  It scores higher from a singlethreaded IPC perspective in the CPU-Z benchmark at 4Ghz than a Skylake CPU does.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 2, 2017)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> What we've seen so far of overclocking and memory speed/bandwidth has been pretty underwhelming but I'll be thrilled to see that swing the other way once the NDA lifts. So far my workstation build is leaning back towards Intel which is going to cost me much more money so fingers crossed for Ryzen here.



Well there are issues with it right now. At least when it comes to memory stability and support.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 2, 2017)

Hexus review - Look at graph and then read the comment from the review.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/102964-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-14nm-zen/?page=9








> However, and somewhat interesting to note, *switching off the chip's SMT* capability increased the average frame rate from 79fps to *85.8fps*, suggesting that code is not running efficiently when there's SMT involved. Hopefully this problem will be fixed by a game-patch update.












> *Going back to SMT, switching it off* also increases the Hitman score, from 91.4fps to *95.6fps*, suggesting, once again, that having it active is definitely hindering performance. In fact, running Ryzen in non-SMT mode offers more performance in every scenario, and this is something that AMD needs to be concerned about.



In both instances, knocking it down to a 4Ghz 8 core/thread part, it beats the i7 7700k at 1440p resolution in Hitman and gains parity with the 6950/6900 in TW.  These are almost certainly game coding shortfalls based on the behaviour of the benchmarks.


----------



## Dimi (Mar 2, 2017)

I am disappointed. Lousy gaming performance over Kabey Lake. I thought about upgrading to this but held off on preordering to wait for reviews. I think i'll wait for Canon Lake or maybe even x299.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 2, 2017)

ShurikN said:


> "One thing I did notice is that all the games I have looked at so far -- which is considerably more than the four shown here -- were smooth on the Ryzen processors. GTA 5 for example plays really well on the Core i7-7700K, but every now and then a small stutter can be noticed, while the 1800X runs as smooth as silk, sans stuttering from what I observed



Thread scheduling works more efficient  is my guess (16 threads vs 8). Hence less switching latency.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 2, 2017)

erek said:


> 1080p's where it's at, imho, i can't afford anything higher resolution, still on a 2011 era TN panel



says the man with a X99/GTX1080 system


----------



## GhostRyder (Mar 2, 2017)

It is starting to sound like it is a software issue causing lousy gaming performance specifically with SMT.  With it off games go quite a bit higher (At least some of the ones I have seen do).  It at least closes the gap a bit which is a good thing to note, however it means that SMT is not yet optimized well.  Not going to be to the end all fix, but sounds like there are definitely some patches needed as even some sites are reporting that updating motherboard bios's is also improving performance by 5%.

Hope they iron things out in a timely manner!


----------



## laszlo (Mar 2, 2017)

for a new architecture launch these chips are performing better than expected.

i think the noticed issues at gaming(and not only) will disappear once the soft's  will be patched to use correctly the cpu architecture&instructions

well done AMD and hope future cpu prices will never reach 1000$ ! (not server ones ofc)


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 2, 2017)

laszlo said:


> for a new architecture launch these chips are performing better than expected.
> 
> i think the noticed issues at gaming(and not only) will disappear once the soft's  *will be patched* to use correctly the cpu architecture&instructions
> 
> well done AMD and hope future cpu prices will never reach 1000$ ! (not server ones ofc)


Yes, there's a good chance the gaming charts will show 5~15% more fps, at a minimum, when SMT quirks are patched over.
The multitude of MT tests show that AMD's SMT yields better returns than SMT even on KL. I'm hoping this is ironed out soon enough, looking at you *MS*


----------



## thesmokingman (Mar 2, 2017)

cdawall said:


> My little Ryzen review.
> 
> I have provided a handful of 3dmark Firestrike runs as well each run was done once with the GPU at stock and once with the GPU overclocked. All GPU overclocked runs had the GPU boosting to 2138mhz on the core and ram at 2250. Maximum load temp on the GPU was 45C, maximum power consumed was 370w at the wall for the full system.
> 
> ...



Thanks for this man. As I expected, Ryzen will change the landscape of 3dmark benching allowing a lot more ppl to get those kinds of physics scores for a hell of a lot less money.


----------



## rougal (Mar 2, 2017)

So, despite the outcome, it still seems more of a bang for buck than the marginal performance difference... but since most of the reviews are using the same Asus board, the results were somewhat "incoherent". I smell the need of "AMD dual-core optimizer" all over again like the old Athlon X2 era for some sort of optimization in certain games and apps. But on the other hand, It's still a good value buy than going the Intel route, unless Intel significantly lower the price points of its CPU line-up..


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 2, 2017)

i kind of regret getting the 1800X over the 1700 - looks like its out of stock now tho...  might see if i can pick one up retail and send the 1800x back.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 2, 2017)

GhostRyder said:


> It is starting to sound like it is a software issue causing lousy gaming performance specifically with SMT.  With it off games go quite a bit higher (At least some of the ones I have seen do).  It at least closes the gap a bit which is a good thing to note, however it means that SMT is not yet optimized well.  Not going to be to the end all fix, but sounds like there are definitely some patches needed as even some sites are reporting that updating motherboard bios's is also improving performance by 5%.
> 
> Hope they iron things out in a timely manner!





R0H1T said:


> Yes, there's a good chance the gaming charts will show 5~15% more fps, at a minimum, when SMT quirks are patched over.
> The multitude of MT tests show that AMD's SMT yields better returns than SMT even on KL. I'm hoping this is ironed out soon enough, looking at you *MS*



And fixing/disabling HPET.


----------



## londiste (Mar 2, 2017)

one of the reviews has a graph with smt on/off for all cpus in the test. intel's ht is affected the same way, only usually to a slightly lesser degree.


----------



## Kyuuba (Mar 2, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> It seems to do IPC alright in certain things.  It scores higher from a singlethreaded IPC perspective in the CPU-Z benchmark at 4Ghz than a Skylake CPU does.


Looking at it, very good IPC in this case, i can only think it's faster than a Oced 7700K.


----------



## hat (Mar 2, 2017)

These are brand new chips that were just released. Intel has been tweaking the same design for years. Some bugs are to be expected, as with any brand new tech.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Mar 2, 2017)

Dimi said:


> I am disappointed. Lousy gaming performance over Kabey Lake. I thought about upgrading to this but held off on preordering to wait for reviews. I think i'll wait for Canon Lake or maybe even x299.


Lousy? It's 5% behind a 7700k at .5ghz lower clock speed and nearly double in multi thread, I have no issues fps wise gaming with a 3570k as do others with 2500k etc but I could sure use an extra 8 threads and double performance in other tasks for the same price....


----------



## yogurt_21 (Mar 2, 2017)

@hat even still my 4790k is very relaxed today, not like it has been pre ryzen release. It was worried about losing its job. Now it knows at the very least I'll have to keep it around for gaming, even if I do get a ryzen productivity rig.


----------



## Vario (Mar 2, 2017)

Better than I expected.  I think once the teething issues are corrected and the next revision comes out it will be a serious contender to the best Intel can make.  Clearly needs more clockspeed, better mobo bios, turbo, and ram compatibility.


----------



## fullinfusion (Mar 2, 2017)

cdawall said:


> My little Ryzen review.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Finally a TRUSTED Source review and info... @W1zzard you need to Hire this MAN!!!

Thanks @cdawall for all your help and info


----------



## FYFI13 (Mar 2, 2017)

No Raisins for me i guess:











Overclocked CPUs:


----------



## v12dock (Mar 3, 2017)

No tuning yet


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 3, 2017)

v12dock said:


> No tuning yet



Destruction in Intel's funland.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 3, 2017)

GhostRyder said:


> It is starting to sound like it is a software issue causing lousy gaming performance specifically with SMT.  With it off games go quite a bit higher (At least some of the ones I have seen do).  It at least closes the gap a bit which is a good thing to note, however it means that SMT is not yet optimized well.  Not going to be to the end all fix, but sounds like there are definitely some patches needed as even some sites are reporting that updating motherboard bios's is also improving performance by 5%.
> 
> Hope they iron things out in a timely manner!


wait... Doesn't intel chips display the exact same behavior? In some titles HT hinders performance??


----------



## Folterknecht (Mar 3, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> wait... Doesn't intel chips display the exact same behavior? In some titles HT hinders performance??



Not anymore - in many/most modern games Intel HT either doesn't affect performance or even leads to a small plus.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/

For Intel on one side and devolpers on the other one there was enough time to iron out the HT issues.
AMD being new to HT on the other hand ... .  Ofc a new platform with iffy BIOS, strange memory behavior and what not doesn't help.


edit:

And to those who think that the 6C/12T part will "really overclock" ... keep dreaming. Maybe in a year or two


----------



## jaggerwild (Mar 3, 2017)

AMD is new to HT hum?


----------



## v12dock (Mar 3, 2017)

cdawall What bios are you using? I am running into a weird temp sensor bug reading incorrecly with 5704


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 3, 2017)

Folterknecht said:


> Not anymore - in many/most modern games Intel HT either doesn't affect performance or even leads to a small plus.
> 
> https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/
> 
> ...


It did as of mid 2016...

http://www.overclock.net/t/1588555/gaming-benchmarks-skylake-core-i7-hyperthreading-test

Also, not sure your link tested HT directly, unless I missed it in translation? Was just a cpu and total threads test, no? Did they disable HT in any of that testing?


----------



## cdawall (Mar 3, 2017)

v12dock said:


> cdawall What bios are you using? I am running into a weird temp sensor bug reading incorrecly with 5704



0702


----------



## AsRock (Mar 3, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> No Raisins for me i guess:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





LMFAO, benchmarks with Arma HAHAHAHAHHA, sorry you cannot trust benchmarks from that game and probably the reason W!zzard don't do them for it too.

Never mind the point if you had a 1080GTX you would at least use nVidia's version of AMD's VSR.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 3, 2017)

AsRock said:


> LMFAO, benchmarks with Arma HAHAHAHAHHA, sorry you cannot trust benchmarks from that game and probably the reason W!zzard don't do them for it too.
> 
> Never mind the point if you had a 1080GTX you would at least use nVidia's version of AMD's VSR.



You mean "D"SR?

man I cant find a ryzen to save my life... even the FRY's in Austin said they had no inventory because "Typical AMD shipment hasn't come in" and the amazon is full of lies... preorder my ass.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 3, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> man I cant find a ryzen to save my life... even the FRY's in Austin said they had no inventory because "Typical AMD shipment hasn't come in" and the amazon is full of lies... preorder my ass.


still stock local... if you wanna pay shipping and exchange... I'll pick it up for ya. Who knows what stock they'll have in the morning, but given these prices...

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX65529


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 3, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> still stock local... if you wanna pay shipping and exchange... I'll pick it up for ya. Who knows what stock they'll have in the morning, but given these prices...
> 
> http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX65529


jesus... nah I'm good for that price.

I was thinking of cancelling the 1800x and going with the 1700 since they seem to hit the same wall, and getting a B350 since they might all top at 4.0ish on all cores anyways.

would save like $200


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 3, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> You mean "D"SR?
> 
> man I cant find a ryzen to save my life... even the FRY's in Austin said they had no inventory because "Typical AMD shipment hasn't come in" and the amazon is full of lies... preorder my ass.



There's tons of each model at microcenter, here lol


----------



## thesmokingman (Mar 3, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> jesus... nah I'm good for that price.
> 
> I was thinking of cancelling the 1800x and going with the 1700 since they seem to hit the same wall, and getting a B350 since they might all top at 4.0ish on all cores anyways.
> 
> would save like $200



That's a good bet.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 3, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> jesus... nah I'm good for that price.
> 
> I was thinking of cancelling the 1800x and going with the 1700 since they seem to hit the same wall, and getting a B350 since they might all top at 4.0ish on all cores anyways.
> 
> would save like $200


Personally, I'm liking how the 1700 looks myself, but not knowing how they clock on average has me hesitate sicne my 1700X isn't a stellar chip... but perhaps the 1700 is better than the 1700X (65W vs 95W)...

BTW, My 1700X doesn't get 4 GHZ... not even close.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 3, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Personally, I'm liking how the 1700 looks myself, but not knowing how they clock on average has me hesitate sicne my 1700X isn't a stellar chip... but perhaps the 1700 is better than the 1700X (65W vs 95W)...
> 
> BTW, My 1700X doesn't get 4 GHZ... not even close.



I've been reading how half assed the options are. It sure was rushed.


----------



## AsRock (Mar 3, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> You mean "D"SR?
> 
> man I cant find a ryzen to save my life... even the FRY's in Austin said they had no inventory because "Typical AMD shipment hasn't come in" and the amazon is full of lies... preorder my ass.




No idea you would have a better idea on that, not used a nVidia card for a fair bit of time now.


----------



## Naito (Mar 3, 2017)

It seems many aspects of computing have taken the "release now, debug later" approach. Anything from games to operating systems and now even the humble BIOS. Members of the general public are now the beta testers.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 3, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Personally, I'm liking how the 1700 looks myself, but not knowing how they clock on average has me hesitate sicne my 1700X isn't a stellar chip... but perhaps the 1700 is better than the 1700X (65W vs 95W)...
> 
> BTW, My 1700X doesn't get 4 GHZ... not even close.


check out the overclockers.com review... the 1700 clocked the highest of all 3...  not sure if its a fluke or the fact that its a lower power design but honestly, if they all generally hit 4ghzish then no point in paying for 1800x... i was assuming a binning process of some kind but... it is AMD, not sure they are that organized.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 3, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> There's tons of each model at microcenter, here lol



20k chips to the chain splits to about 900 per store.



phanbuey said:


> check out the overclockers.com review... the 1700 clocked the highest of all 3...  not sure if its a fluke or the fact that its a lower power design but honestly, if they all generally hit 4ghzish then no point in paying for 1800x... i was assuming a binning process of some kind but... it is AMD, not sure they are that organized.



AMD doesn't care if they overclock. Remember people overclocking are far and few between. The binning between the models is just like the 9370/9590 and then e chips of the fx generation. 

1700x will be a high leak poor performing chip, 1800x will be a high leak good performing chip and the 1700 will be a low leak chip. 

Under cold there is a good chance the 1700X could perform better, but on ambient cooling it will likely fall to the 1700 overall. 

Now I could be off base, but that is my experience.


----------



## The Pack (Mar 3, 2017)

cdawall said:


> My little Ryzen review.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1.52v for 4.07GHz...?


----------



## cdawall (Mar 3, 2017)

The Pack said:


> 1.52v for 4.07GHz...?



1.475v in the bios with level 3 vdroop enabled


----------



## The Pack (Mar 3, 2017)

cdawall said:


> 1.475v in the bios with level 3 vdroop enabled



uff...i don`t know what i want to think about this...and than, 4.5GHz@1.8v...? 95W TDP...?


----------



## cdawall (Mar 3, 2017)

The Pack said:


> uff...i don`t know what i want to think about this...and than, 4.5GHz@1.8v...? 95W TDP...?



1.475v seems to be about all they can take without stability issues on ambient temps.


----------



## The Pack (Mar 3, 2017)

Aha...but you are on air...?


----------



## cdawall (Mar 3, 2017)

The Pack said:


> Aha...but you are on air...?



Water


----------



## The Pack (Mar 3, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Water


Uff...perhaps it's here a siliconlottery too...


----------



## cdawall (Mar 3, 2017)

The Pack said:


> Uff...perhaps it's here a siliconlottery too...



The second retail chip I grabbed topped out about the same slightly lower voltage, but couldn't clock ram as high.


----------



## laszlo (Mar 3, 2017)

i checked almost all reviews and noticed that those using an amd gpu don't show such big gaming differences like those using nvidia... i'm wrong?


----------



## The Pack (Mar 3, 2017)

laszlo said:


> i checked almost all reviews and noticed that those using an amd gpu don't show such big gaming differences like those using nvidia... i'm wrong?



But a lot of lower watts...


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 3, 2017)

The AMD GPU at 1080p will face a lower frame rate than a GTX1080. Those lower FPS will show less on the CPU. Not saying GPU bottleneck but that's the angle.
A high throughput of FPS from a more powerful Nvidia card will cause the CPU to struggle, that's why the 7700k does so well with it's far higher clocks speeds.


----------



## laszlo (Mar 3, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> The AMD GPU at 1080p will face a lower frame rate than a GTX1080. Those lower FPS will show less on the CPU. Not saying GPU bottleneck but that's the angle.
> A high throughput of FPS from a more powerful Nvidia card will cause the CPU to struggle, that's why the 7700k does so well with it's far higher clocks speeds.



but how you explain that cpu is used only 70-80%


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 3, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> My 1700X doesn't get 4 GHZ... not even close.





cdawall said:


> The second retail chip I grabbed topped out about the same slightly lower voltage, but couldn't clock ram as high.



Ah dammit, looks like only 1800X ones consistently hit over 4 GHz on all cores and 3000 MHz on two memory sticks ... that's some tight binning, no wonder they have gazzilion sensors


----------



## The Pack (Mar 3, 2017)

BiggieShady said:


> Ah dammit, looks like only 1800X ones consistently hit over 4 GHz on all cores and 3000 MHz on two memory sticks ... that's some tight binning, no wonder they have gazzilion sensors



These sensors stop the oc? These can't more...?


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 3, 2017)

So...

If AMD work with Devs who can then better code on the CPU side (not for DX12) but AMD's hardware and instructions, we can assume a better gaming performance?

And, if games try to use more cores (not threads) as time goes on, will the Ryzen chips have a nice longevity?

Right now I am swaying between an 1800X and a 7700k.  To be fair, I could wait a little longer for Skylake-E. But if Skylake-E clocks like Broadwell-E, well, may as well go Ryzen.

If games don't move to over 4 core usage in 1-3 years, may as we'll stick to Intel 4 core?

What to do people?


----------



## FYFI13 (Mar 3, 2017)

AsRock said:


> LMFAO, benchmarks with Arma HAHAHAHAHHA, sorry you cannot trust benchmarks from that game


You can benchmark that game just fine, just need to know the game and how to do it. Results are very comparable.



AsRock said:


> probably the reason W!zzard don't do them for it too.


W!zzard has done 1 CPU review since 2011. And it was more like 6700K vs 7700k, no other CPU's. Benching Arma 3 on different graphics cards is almost pointless, i do agree. We're talking about processors.



AsRock said:


> Never mind the point if you had a 1080GTX you would at least use nVidia's version of AMD's VSR.


1. You can scale 3D resolution in game without DSR, VSR or any other techs. It's built in.
2. Increasing resolution in Arma 3 does hit CPU performance, despite of what graphics card you're using.

Have you even tried this game?


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 3, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> So...
> 
> If AMD work with Devs who can then better code on the CPU side (not for DX12) but AMD's hardware and instructions, we can assume a better gaming performance?
> 
> ...



I would say maybe but might just be with-in 5%

Maybe.  Porting titles wont cramp so much during the process. XB1 and PS4 uses more cores at lower fqz.  AMD did emphasize it on one of the Q&As.

Isn't Intel introducing 6c next cycle even if they will have a high price the field will be slightly moving toward more cores, affordable cores.
 I'm waiting for the 5 1600 and seeing how things shape out if not i'll just build a 7700 (mATX).  Lower power and I don't want to OC (increase 20-50w just for 5-10fps more that's a 3rd to half of power) and avoiding AIO coolers.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 3, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> So...
> 
> If AMD work with Devs who can then better code on the CPU side (not for DX12) but AMD's hardware and instructions, we can assume a better gaming performance?
> 
> ...



Don't buy into this Ryzen hype. As far as I can see in exchange of 8 cores and 16 threads you get a buggy platform, limited overclocking potential and not adequate gaming performance. All this for not quite cheap. On the other hand it's obvious that Intel has to move the 8c16T parts towards a more "friendly" price and kudos to AMD for pushing it. I think this is the way to go for an enthusiast system that you want to last for a few good years. What you have right now is still good enough to wait and see what Skylake-E will bring in order to cover all bases, that is if money is not a problem. A quick resolve would be of course the 7700k.


----------



## Folterknecht (Mar 3, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> So...
> 
> To be fair, I could wait a little longer for Skylake-E. But if Skylake-E clocks like Broadwell-E, well, may as well go Ryzen.
> 
> ...



Think about it - on desktop Haswell was an ok to good overclocker and Broadwell was mehhh. The same trend we later saw on X99. 
Now look at Skylake/Kabylake - on the desktop side of things they reach even higher speeds than Haswell, so it stands to reason that on HEDT Skylake will also reach good speeds, if the trend continues and why shouldn't it?


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 3, 2017)

I'm shocked at the negativity around these new CPUs.

They seem to slot in nicely into the market, clock for clock performance is competitive and they really do well in highly threaded tasks. 

It seems the major flaw at the moment is low clock speeds but that will come with future revisions. And that ought to alleviate mediocre gaming performance how ever we still shouldn't expect very high clocks out of an 8 core part straight out the gate.  ( perhaps Ryzen 5 and 3 will be the ones to get for people that only game) 

The Smt related bugs can hopefully be sorted with software and the ram stuff...

Well the ram stuff could genuinely be a huge issue we'll have to wait and see. 


Over all I'm quite impressed, fingers crossed AMD can pull higher clock speeds out of this design are then it will be truly competitive not just on multi tasking.


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 3, 2017)

The Pack said:


> These sensors stop the oc? These can't more...?


Heaps of built-in sensors used not only for precise dynamic OC with high granularity but also to extract frequency/voltage curve during the binning process.
What stops OC is the fact they binned chips so tightly, very little oc headroom is left.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 3, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> So...
> 
> If AMD work with Devs who can then better code on the CPU side (not for DX12) but AMD's hardware and instructions, we can assume a better gaming performance?
> 
> ...



I'm in the same boat, although i was looking at the 1700 non-x, meh I'm torn because Ryzen excels in many areas but they happen to be in workloads my PC never sees.

For the same cash as the 1700 I can grab a 7700K.

Reading Ryzen reviews was like death by snu snu.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 3, 2017)

Fluffmeister said:


> Reading Ryzen reviews was like death by snu snu.


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 3, 2017)

Fluffmeister said:


> Reading Ryzen reviews was like death by snu snu.


By the large women ... then by the petite women ... then by the large women again


----------



## petepete (Mar 3, 2017)

So happy I didn't drop 659+tax Canadian to get one of these for gaming and instead got the 7700k


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 3, 2017)

Just back home from San Francisco, starting Ryzen testing now.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 3, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Just back home from San Francisco, starting Ryzen testing now.



You are welcome to send them to me when you are all don't to test again I'll re-review it for you.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 3, 2017)

laszlo said:


> but how you explain that cpu is used only 70-80%



Because the bottleneck is not the raw ability to crunch.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 3, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> I'm shocked at the negativity around these new CPUs.
> 
> They seem to slot in nicely into the market, clock for clock performance is competitive and they really do well in highly threaded tasks.
> 
> ...



It's a direct result of over hype.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 3, 2017)

alucasa said:


> It's a direct result of over hype.


I guess... I mean I read all of the hype and none of it was off base...  I think alot of people made some assumptions that were rather unrealistic which were never actually said by amd.  This was nothing like bulldozer or the 2900XT debacles.

not to mention, the 7700K and the 6700K smoke intel's own HEDT chips in gaming.... hell the 7600K games better than most of the HEDT chips.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 3, 2017)

The "leaks" were mostly accurate. But, when there is over hyping, those who fall for it tend to see such upcoming products as "holy grail" of some sort.

In short, in their deluded minds, Ryzen was supposed to completely, utterly, destroy Intel's offerings.

Reality is it does not, hence the anger for the time being.

Remember: AMD"s official benchmark program was Blender, meaning they knew Ryzen would be a workstation chip.


----------



## Steevo (Mar 3, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Just back home from San Francisco, starting Ryzen testing now.




Can we get some Prime and other math love, and on all cores, and at set priority and lots of other ways too? Any difference in running the test multiple times, back to back or after reboot to see if the "Predictive AI" works or if its just fluff?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 3, 2017)

We tested WPrime and Super Pi at OCF...


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 3, 2017)

Steevo said:


> Can we get some Prime and other math love, and on all cores, and at set priority and lots of other ways too? Any difference in running the test multiple times, back to back or after reboot to see if the "Predictive AI" works or if its just fluff?



It can't store info after the process isn't running is what I read.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 3, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> We tested WPrime and Super Pi at OCF...



I tested them in this thread...


----------



## Steevo (Mar 3, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I tested them in this thread...




I will have to look at yours, I found some others already, still a bit weak in pure math though. I was curious about the AI or if it was more of a Fail I.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 3, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> I guess... I mean I read all of the hype and none of it was off base...  I think alot of people made some assumptions that were rather unrealistic which were never actually said by amd.  This was nothing like bulldozer or the 2900XT debacles.
> 
> not to mention, the 7700K and the 6700K smoke intel's own HEDT chips in gaming.... hell the 7600K games better than most of the HEDT chips.


exactly but lets not also forget that a heavily clocked i3 can beat all of them and more in Some games as @FYFI13 confusingly just states against amd

Amd  did well in my honest ,subjective and educated opinion , lets see how it pans out in the next year ,it will be more interesting then last year definitely.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 3, 2017)

One core to rule all.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 3, 2017)

alucasa said:


> One core to rule all.


just gotta pick the right game id expect a million fps from Tetris for example.


----------



## jaggerwild (Mar 3, 2017)

4.2 on water lol enjoy you early adapters!


----------



## Steevo (Mar 3, 2017)

jaggerwild said:


> 4.2 on water lol enjoy you early adapters!



I would take the drop in TDP and 40%IPC improvement, but I'm going to have to move my storage to another PC cause I need at least 3 PCIE slots.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 3, 2017)

Well, early adapters pay the price.

Meanwhile, the low clock is explained by a fact that Ryzen is the first Uarch for the processor family.

Consider i7-920 era. It took Intel many years to reach Kaby lake clock speed. Given enough years, future Ryzen chips should have higher clocks and better OC capability.
Of course, Intel won't sit still.


----------



## v12dock (Mar 3, 2017)

This is going to make on hell of a server CPU


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 3, 2017)

jaggerwild said:


> 4.2 on water lol enjoy you early adapters!


It's early adopters in everyday setups and not test benches that give us a real world insight into what these things can do and workarounds on issues....... although I am probably biased because I don't have a test bench   ohh wait I don't have Ryzen either!


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 3, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> ohh wait I don't have Ryzen either!



You sure @Raevenlord didn't get the sample "AMD sent TPU"   (Office Shanagians eh )


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 4, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Personally, I'm liking how the 1700 looks myself, but not knowing how they clock on average has me hesitate sicne my 1700X isn't a stellar chip... but perhaps the 1700 is better than the 1700X (65W vs 95W)...
> 
> BTW, My 1700X doesn't get 4 GHZ... not even close.









Made the switch... now to find a mobo.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 4, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> View attachment 84762
> 
> Made the switch... now to find a mobo.



Good luck. Personally, I am going to wait out since I can't find mobo (mATX). Biostar has got a ITX out but I need more to select from.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 4, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Good luck. Personally, I am going to wait out since I can't find mobo (mATX). Biostar has got a ITX out but I need more to select from.



Thanks man!  Yeah the mobo situation is a bit more dire than I thought.  A local store has some coming in on Monday, so I am anxious to see if I can pick up an Asrock... have had some good luck with them.


----------



## infrared (Mar 4, 2017)

Nice one phanbuey, can't wait to see it up and running. Also the sticker is cool! Makes a change over the intel ones xD


----------



## toilet pepper (Mar 4, 2017)

I wish mobo bios could let the xfr chips clock higher. Still looking at the 1700 chip here though they are priced around $80 higher than srp. A reason I wish board manufacturers had am3 support like the asus hero. Saving a few bucks for a cooler can go a long mile.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 4, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Just back home from San Francisco, starting Ryzen testing now.




you been back for 21 hours now, you done yet??????


P.S.- not rushing you, but your reviews are the ones I trust the most.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 4, 2017)

@Knoxx29 is also looking forward to them


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 4, 2017)

From what I have seen here in the UK most of the MATX AM4 boards appear to have the B250 chipset so may just try one of those with a 1700, I just fancy something different and have had a MATX build on hold for 3 months now, still caught a little between the 1700 and a 7700K to be honest.


----------



## erek (Mar 4, 2017)

BarbaricSoul said:


> says the man with a X99/GTX1080 system


what's wrong with that?


----------



## Ravenas (Mar 4, 2017)

Eagerly awaiting the 1800x review. I've read a lot of reviews already, and I'm very satisfied with the results of the 1800x so far. May hold out for the 1900x, but probably not.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 4, 2017)

It's been LN2 benched to 5.8 now. Has a new cinebench world record.  Beats the i7 6950 and the Ryzen (1800x) had a slower frequency...

https://wccftech.com/ryzen-7-1800x-overclocked-58ghz-ln2/amp/


----------



## GLD (Mar 4, 2017)

Last month I upgraded to a FX 8300, YES it was an upgrade for me. 

I will be going AM4 as it looks great imo. I will be waiting for it to mature awhile before I change out my rig.


----------



## Aenra (Mar 4, 2017)

@cdawall
The obligatory thank you for starters and i mean it (as in, our disagreements in the previous thread aside) 
Got two questions if you wouldn't mind:

- As i cannot do the math without knowing the Amperes it took, can you tell me how many Watts total we're talking about? For those 1.475 volts ?
- Mayhap random, mayhap self-evident, but am not really involved in all this jazz.. folks like me don't have 'samples' sent to them. What exactly is it you do in relation to this? Be it as a full or part time job?
edit: no innuendos, should have phrased it better but will not edit it for transparency purposes.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 4, 2017)

BarbaricSoul said:


> you been back for 21 hours now, you done yet??????
> 
> 
> P.S.- not rushing you, but your reviews are the ones I trust the most.


Gigabyte board BIOS: worst I've ever seen.
Memory, that AMD shipped with the CPU: doesn't work at 2666, bought two new kits this morning with same-day.
Results: so far extremely unimpressed


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 4, 2017)

""RYZEN""  the new Apple

Your not holding it right


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 4, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> ""RYZEN""  the new Apple
> 
> Your not holding it right



Fail


----------



## alucasa (Mar 4, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Gigabyte board BIOS: worst I've ever seen.
> Memory, that AMD shipped with the CPU: doesn't work at 2666, bought two new kits this morning with same-day.
> Results: so far extremely unimpressed



I think communication between AMD and mobo vendors were horrid at best. They had so many intentional leaks to boost hype but they weren't talking to mobo vendors.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 4, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Gigabyte board BIOS: worst I've ever seen.
> Memory, that AMD shipped with the CPU: doesn't work at 2666, bought two new kits this morning with same-day.
> Results: so far extremely unimpressed



Hello Kabylake...

I must say, I really wanted to buy the 1800X but it really seems obvious for now that it isn't suited to me.


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 4, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Memory, that AMD shipped with the CPU: doesn't work at 2666, bought two new kits


That's rough ... considering X370 boards from Gigabyte have memory compatibility list 4 pages long


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 4, 2017)

I have this for CPU benchmarks. Probably gonna use wPrime 1024M though.

Any feedback?

Also will add game benchmarks after I got those done


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 4, 2017)

Memory is here, wish me luck


----------



## Jhelms (Mar 4, 2017)

I was aiming for the 1700 non x for a value beast when overclocked - legit reviews confirmed my suspicions. http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocking-best-ryzen-processor_192191

Not bad for a day 1 processor. Little bummed on the voltage required for 4ghz stability / overall wattage under full load was higher than I would like to see but she was stable and easily outran an 1800x at stock clocks... Reminds me of back in the day with my 2500+ xp gunning down 3200+ chips


----------



## Steevo (Mar 4, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> I have this for CPU benchmarks. Probably gonna use wPrime 1024M though.
> 
> Any feedback?
> 
> Also will add game benchmarks after I got those done





Can we get runs on SuperPi and wPrime back to back compared to between reboots, and with set core affinity and thread priority sir?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 4, 2017)

Garage1217 said:


> I was aiming for the 1700 non x for a value beast when overclocked - legit reviews confirmed my suspicions. http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocking-best-ryzen-processor_192191
> 
> Not bad for a day 1 processor. Little bummed on the voltage required for 4ghz stability / overall wattage under full load was higher than I would like to see but she was stable and easily outran an 1800x at stock clocks... Reminds me of back in the day with my 2500+ xp gunning down 3200+ chips



1700 seems to be the best choice by far considering they all clock much of a muchness. You'd have to be a bit of a loony to pay extra for the 1700X or 1800X.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 4, 2017)

I personally think 1800k is not worth the extra 100 USD.

1700k for the most users probably.

For me, I am probably going to pick up 1700 once mobo situation is solved.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 4, 2017)

@W1zzard, could you benchmark the games running overclocked memory?

http://www.eteknix.com/memory-speed-large-impact-ryzen-performance/

Seems that the slow kits and sent out are possibly hampering performance...


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 4, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> @W1zzard, could you benchmark the games running overclocked memory?
> 
> http://www.eteknix.com/memory-speed-large-impact-ryzen-performance/
> 
> Seems that the slow kits and sent out are possibly hampering performance...


"stock" is not _hampering_ performance.


----------



## MetalRacer (Mar 4, 2017)

Add RealBench to your benchmark list.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 4, 2017)

MetalRacer said:


> Add RealBench to your benchmark list.


It's an ASUS-branded benchmark that simply uses other tests in a wrapper. That's why I stopped using it; can get the same results from those actual benchmarks individually anyway.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 4, 2017)

CPUZ  bench would be good


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 4, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> CPUZ  bench would be good


Is it? Not sure myself


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 4, 2017)

it would be good to see where they sit in comparison to those posted here.

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/share-your-cpuz-benchmarks.216765/page-30


----------



## MetalRacer (Mar 4, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> It's an ASUS-branded benchmark that simply uses other tests in a wrapper. That's why I stopped using it; can get the same results from those actual benchmarks individually anyway.


I know what it is. I think it should still be added for a good stress test of the OC.


----------



## The Lighthouse (Mar 4, 2017)

It seems Ryzen is really picky regarding power states (has to be High Performance mode) and SMT... and not to mention Bios update as well.

And it seems using Windows 7 instead of Windows 10 will bring far more performance as well (which is quite ironic), with 17% increase in draw call performance.


----------



## Ravenas (Mar 4, 2017)

alucasa said:


> I think communication between AMD and mobo vendors were horrid at best. They had so many intentional leaks to boost hype but they weren't talking to mobo vendors.


I highly doubt there was a lack of communication between AMD and it's MOBO vendors. I think it's more like the lack of competition AMD has provided over the last 2-3 years. Vendors are most likely telling them they don't have the resources to support two platforms... Example, look at the state of software updates and bios updates for 990fx... Any 990fx user knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Hopefully now with Ryzen, vendors will begin supporting a second platform once more with the newly garnished respect that is generated from Ryzen sales and performance alike.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 4, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Gigabyte board BIOS: worst I've ever seen.
> Memory, that AMD shipped with the CPU: doesn't work at 2666, bought two new kits this morning with same-day.
> Results: so far extremely unimpressed



Gaming 5? If so shoot me a pm if you want some of the tricks for it. The board is a hunk of junk that lacks a clockgen chip...so good luck



Aenra said:


> @cdawall
> The obligatory thank you for starters and i mean it (as in, our disagreements in the previous thread aside)
> Got two questions if you wouldn't mind:
> 
> ...



You are just fine I appreciate the call out. As for wattage I do not have the ability to test just CPU consumption but I was looking at 260w at the wall using 1.475v. These really jump up when you push the voltage on them. It looks like the only reason AMD was able to show a "95w" chip was by neutering the clockspeed even in turbo. If I had to estimate the chip based off of temps, personal experience with guessing I would say the chip under load was just shy of 180w.

My current job is in a repair center at a retail store while I am back in school. They had me build a demo unit for AMD. So I ended up with the sample a little early. I am hoping to take the connections I made here with me when I swap to my new job as lead instructor at a local school and hopefully will continue getting samples.


----------



## The Lighthouse (Mar 5, 2017)

Continuing from my comment regarding Windows 7 vs Windows 10 performance, there is indeed huge performance difference in gaming for Ryzen. From The Stilt in Anandtech forum.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732

Very noticeable increase in min framerate. I really wish AMD delayed the release of the chips and let Microsoft to actually release the Windows 10 patch before launching.


----------



## Iceni (Mar 5, 2017)

@W1zzard 

A long shot here. Could you do a set of results including older benchmark chips like the 2500K . I'm seeing a lot of reviews that are only interested in current CPU's, and its getting frustrating for me at least to have 3-4 test pages open to try get a good overview.  There is no need from my perspective to do a fast review, a good comprehensive one would be far more beneficial.


----------



## HTC (Mar 5, 2017)

@cdawall  and / or @W1zzard 

Any chance some underclocking can be included as well?

Wondering if it's worth it to underclock the CPU a bit without losing too much performance!


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 5, 2017)

The Lighthouse said:


> Continuing from my comment regarding Windows 7 vs Windows 10 performance, there is indeed huge performance difference in gaming for Ryzen. From The Stilt in Anandtech forum.
> 
> https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732
> 
> Very noticeable increase in min framerate. I really wish AMD delayed the release of the chips and let Microsoft to actually release the Windows 10 patch before launching.


I was interested in running W7 on Ryzen when I get it, just to see how it performs in comparison to my current CPU, although all listings I look at for Motherboards show W10 and newer is required.


----------



## v12dock (Mar 5, 2017)

Not much I can do overclocking on the 1700X I did manage to get my ram from 2166 to 2800 huge different in ram speeds. I agree the whole platform is more a "beta" still a super impressive CPU


----------



## Melvis (Mar 5, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> I have this for CPU benchmarks. Probably gonna use wPrime 1024M though.
> 
> Any feedback?
> 
> Also will add game benchmarks after I got those done



Id personally Ditch SuperPi if your going to compare it to other CPU's. (intel)

Anything multi threaded would be nice and id like to see some DOOM benchmarks with Vulkan turned on, seems to love cores.



The Lighthouse said:


> And it seems using Windows 7 instead of Windows 10 will bring far more performance as well (which is quite ironic), with 17% increase in draw call performance.



Do you have any other links that show tests done on Windows 7? gaming and alike, would be very helpful.



Caring1 said:


> I was interested in running W7 on Ryzen when I get it, just to see how it performs in comparison to my current CPU, although all listings I look at for Motherboards show W10 and newer is required.



Gigabyte website shows they have Drivers for all the new chipsets for Windows 7.


----------



## The Lighthouse (Mar 5, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Do you have any other links that show tests done on Windows 7? gaming and alike, would be very helpful.



As I posted above, it's done by The Stilt. This is Total war : War hammer.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732

And it seems in Windows 7, enabling SMT improves performance, while enabling SMT hurts performance in Windows 10.


*Tries to click that Start button my Windows 10, realizes it is no longer working AGAIN* I guess this is why people call Windows 10 a 'beta OS.' The amount of bugs and stuffs sometimes astonish me....


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 5, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Gigabyte website shows they have Drivers for all the new chipsets for Windows 7.


Thanks, although I was really hoping for another Asrock board.


----------



## v12dock (Mar 5, 2017)

Interesting benches on Phoronix
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-ryzen-cores&num=2


----------



## tttony (Mar 5, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> I have this for CPU benchmarks. Probably gonna use wPrime 1024M though.
> 
> Any feedback?
> 
> Also will add game benchmarks after I got those done



What about Fritz Chess Bench and I would love a more recent chess engine, like Stockfish

It has a internal bench, you can run like this

*stockfish.exe bench 128 1 15
stockfish.exe bench 128 4 15
stockfish.exe bench 128 8 15*


```
128 -  Is the memory size, the transposition table size
8     -  Is number of cores to use
15   -  The max search depth, the higher the more time will spent in showing the results, I think 15 it's good
```

At the end of the output you will see something like this:

I tested in my i5 2500K

*stockfish.exe bench 128 3 15*


```
===========================
Total time (ms) : 4884
Nodes searched  : 25273773
Nodes/second    : 5174810
```


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 5, 2017)

The Lighthouse said:


> As I posted above, it's done by The Stilt. This is Total war : War hammer.
> 
> https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732
> 
> ...


Windows looks to be in perpetual beta, certainly after win7 was relegated to extended support. I wonder if the shock of win10 phones or windows on mobiles failing, as spectacularly as they did forced MS to make the desktop (users) their new guinea pigs.


----------



## HD64G (Mar 5, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> It's been LN2 benched to 5.8 now. Has a new cinebench world record.  Beats the i7 6950 and the Ryzen (1800x) had a slower frequency...
> 
> https://wccftech.com/ryzen-7-1800x-overclocked-58ghz-ln2/amp/



And this is the proff of its arch being a good one. Lower wattage than i7 8-core ones, better SMT, better IPC in integer, comparable in floating, much better price. Only thing to wait for is the better BIOS, a windows driver and some game devs to patch their games for Ryzen.



W1zzard said:


> Gigabyte board BIOS: worst I've ever seen.
> Memory, that AMD shipped with the CPU: doesn't work at 2666, bought two new kits this morning with same-day.
> Results: so far extremely unimpressed


If I were in your shoe, I would wait for the updates (BIOS and windows driver) and test then to get a definite result.


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 5, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> CPUZ bench would be good





W1zzard said:


> Is it? Not sure myself





CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> it would be good to see where they sit in comparison to those posted here.



Looking at the results in the thread, single threaded score for ryzen@4.125 match kaby@4.8 ... it surely is not the indicator of a real world performance, maybe the whole bench code fits in ryzen's bigger L2 cache?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 5, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> I have this for CPU benchmarks. Probably gonna use wPrime 1024M though.
> 
> Any feedback?
> 
> Also will add game benchmarks after I got those done



Is there anyway you can run WCG as a benchmark? Maybe a 24 hour crunch run and post results? Crunching is the main reason I'm considering upgrading to Ryzen. I will be waiting until the BIOs are more sorted out.


----------



## Aenra (Mar 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> while I am back in school



Not sure what this entails in terms of age (nowadays people get back at any age), but if statistically speaking it means what i think it means, my respect.
You express yourself quite well for your age and show a maturity to match. Had you pegged as much older.

As to the wattage, yeah, it's why i asked, lol
I don't understand AMD sometimes. Why lie? Why, when they will find out a few days later and call you out on it? They overdid it with the PR, too aggressive i tend to think and we can already see the blowback. I honestly thought they'd have learned after previous similar events.

The chip is perfect far as i'm concerned. Minimum performance difference, unfelt for the majority of us, and at half the price. It sells itself dammit, so why exaggerate.
(likewise with the gaming performance; like someone else in this forum said, don't blame the game devs, their games were out before Ryzen was out. Just say we're working with them, it's new tech, blah blah, and call it a day. This hurts them, basic 101 here..)



The Lighthouse said:


> Continuing from my comment regarding Windows 7 vs Windows 10 performance



Read in a different site that the major culprit is the way their SMT functions, namely in terms of integer and floating points division between the threads. Ryzens need one core=two threads doing integers, a second core=two different threads doing floats.
(Win 10 cannot distinguish between two threads and two cores, sees two threads as two different cores; ergo it can occasionally "ask" said same Ryzen core [thinking it's two different ones] to do both the integer and the floating, hence the performance drop).
If, _if_, that is the case, then no offense, but while i have many complaints about Microsoft, this wouldn't be one of them.

Edit: And it looks like it is, as AMD itself has suggested disabling SMT for now, giving the above some credence.

As a manufacturer, you know in advance what the OS does and does not. Either you accommodate (like the "other guys" did with their multi-threading), or you get in touch and hope for some changes on the OS developers' part. The blaming game played here is uncalled for.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 5, 2017)

erek said:


> what's wrong with that?



Yeah, what's wrong with running a $5500 monster system (according to PC Partpicker) on an outdated $135 TN monitor? If you don't know, you're doing it wrong.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ymCvYr


----------



## FlanK3r (Mar 5, 2017)

Its here someone with Ryzen+Windows 7?


----------



## mroofie (Mar 5, 2017)

BarbaricSoul said:


> you been back for 21 hours now, you done yet??????
> 
> 
> P.S.- not rushing you, but your reviews are the ones I trust the most.


this ^
The wait is killing me   



The Lighthouse said:


> Continuing from my comment regarding Windows 7 vs Windows 10 performance, there is indeed huge performance difference in gaming for Ryzen. From The Stilt in Anandtech forum.
> 
> https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732
> 
> Very noticeable increase in min framerate. I really wish AMD delayed the release of the chips and let Microsoft to actually release the Windows 10 patch before launching.



Amd should have just delayed the launch. 
So many problems ranging from the different hardware issues (cpu, mobo etc.) to software issues 
Their Zen is taking a unnecessary hit now than a delayed launch would have done 



FlanK3r said:


> *Its here *someone with Ryzen+Windows 7?



? 



W1zzard said:


> Memory is here, wish me luck


Any possible date for review ? :whistle:




jboydgolfer said:


> So with a simple answer, can anyone tell me ....have these chips lived up to the hype? Are they truly "Intel killers"? Or is it still too early to know?



very early..

so many issues its not even funny


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 5, 2017)

So with a simple answer, can anyone tell me ....have these chips lived up to the hype? Are they truly "Intel killers"? Or is it still too early to know?


----------



## MetalRacer (Mar 5, 2017)

FlanK3r said:


> Its here someone with Ryzen+Windows 7?


The stilt claims to be running it.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-4


----------



## alucasa (Mar 5, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> So with a simple answer, can anyone tell me ....have these chips lived up to the hype? Are they truly "Intel killers"? Or is it still too early to know?



I think what I typed days ago is still valid. I need to add that mobo selection is pitiful and the whole platform is buggy.

In short, wait.



alucasa said:


> From what I see from official reviews -
> 
> 1. Performance is on par with leaks.
> 2. So so for gaming.
> ...


----------



## Folterknecht (Mar 5, 2017)

HTC said:


> @cdawall  and / or @W1zzard
> 
> Any chance some underclocking can be included as well?
> 
> Wondering if it's worth it to underclock the CPU a bit without losing too much performance!



Undervolting is possible


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 5, 2017)

I'm still setting up benchmarks, then reinstall Windows, then bench everything new on all comparison systems + Ryzen.

At the same time working on VGA Bench rig, so I can get GTX 1080 Ti review done asap.

Maybe Wednesday for Ryzen


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 5, 2017)

I really look forward to (once again) having a competitive lineup to choose from ,when shopping in the processor market... fingers crossed


----------



## Fabiano (Mar 5, 2017)

HTC said:


> @cdawall  and / or @W1zzard
> 
> Any chance some underclocking can be included as well?
> 
> Wondering if it's worth it to underclock the CPU a bit without losing too much performance!



Underclocking + undervoltaging seems to be just just amazing. 

The Stilt is doing some really good research on that subject.

*Ryzen: Strictly technical*






Cinebench 15 - 30W - 850 points | 35W - 1000 Points 


Also, voltage vs frequency graph


----------



## cdawall (Mar 5, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Not sure what this entails in terms of age (nowadays people get back at any age), but if statistically speaking it means what i think it means, my respect.
> You express yourself quite well for your age and show a maturity to match. Had you pegged as much older.



About to be 26. Spent 6 years in the military which is probably why I sound older than most people expect it forces you to grow up quickly. Having two children at a younger age did the same. Lol. 

As for the amd or machine... Unluckily this is the same price machine I can remember for as far back as phenom 1 at least they didn't do a "real core" smear campaign with a worse performing product.


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Mar 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Wait for the lower core count products. This isn't a top clocked item, the efficiency they provide in multithreading makes them a better choice as more titles move to vulkan/DX12 regardless of model purchased and they are offering such a huge jump over the FX series it isn't even funny. Saying these offer a lackluster gaming performance means quite simply that X99 offers NO gaming performance at all since at stock I do not believe there is a single 2011v3 or v4 CPU that offers better performance in most games. Certainly the 6900K and 6950X are trash in this situation as well with their lower clockspeed and worse performing multithreaded IPC.
> 
> This isn't a 5ghz quad core product. This is a slower running 8 core model. If all you want to do is game than wait for AMD to drop the quad and six core parts and see how they clock. As it stands now we are looking at a 5-20FPS difference at 1080P not exactly a deal breaker for most going from 140FPS to 120FPS. There are also games when that is reversed and AMD offers MORE performance, yet those games aren't mentioned.



It just drives me bonkers that people keep citing frames per second you will never see at any resolution on 60hz displays like 4k TVs I currently use. It just doesn't matter whether you have 80 or 100 or 200 or whatever it may be. Who cares if it doesn't benchmark as well when the GPU can hit high FPS beyond refresh rate? It just doesn't matter to the overall experience. This isn't a processor released in a vacuum. It is an entire platform and the question to a consumer is whether it is a worthy upgrade from their already existing platform at a reasonable price.  To compare a multimedia CPU like the current 16 thread Ryzen chips to a gaming-centric I7 7700k is ridiculous. To say a chip marketing for games is better at games, especially when overclocked, albeit marginally and not really in real world usage is like saying the sky is blue. The full story of Ryzen hasn't been told yet and I wish people would reserve judgement and any otherwise idiotic misinformed opinions.



TheGuruStud said:


> What's really funny is I saw multiple scores where it wins at 1440+ lolz. I haven't played at 1080 in... 2 years?



The future and the now is 4K and if a chip can do over 60 FPS at 1080p it can also do that at 4K. The GPU is the real heart of a gaming platform. The CPU merely has to be enough......


----------



## Folterknecht (Mar 5, 2017)

And what drives me bonkers are morons who claim that FPS at lower res don't matter when it comes to CPUs. Go and buy Bulldozer dimwit.

When spending 500-1000€ on a platform I 'd like to have an idea how it performs in 2-4 years when games are more demanding in regards to CPU or have to keep up with newer GPUs.


----------



## Ravenas (Mar 5, 2017)

Robert-The-Rambler said:


> It just drives me bonkers that people keep citing frames per second you will never see at any resolution on 60hz displays like 4k TVs I currently use. It just doesn't matter whether you have 80 or 100 or 200 or whatever it may be. Who cares if it doesn't benchmark as well when the GPU can hit high FPS beyond refresh rate? It just doesn't matter to the overall experience. This isn't a processor released in a vacuum. It is an entire platform and the question to a consumer is whether it is a worthy upgrade from their already existing platform at a reasonable price.  To compare a multimedia CPU like the current 16 thread Ryzen chips to a gaming-centric I7 7700k is ridiculous. To say a chip marketing for games is better at games, especially when overclocked, albeit marginally and not really in real world usage is like saying the sky is blue. The full story of Ryzen hasn't been told yet and I wish people would reserve judgement and any otherwise idiotic misinformed opinions.



Every interview I have read, AMD is comparing the Ryzen 1800k to the 6900K.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 5, 2017)

Folterknecht said:


> And what drives me bonkers are morons who claim that FPS at lower res don't matter when it comes to CPUs. Go and buy Bulldozer dimwit.
> 
> When spending 500-1000€ on a platform I 'd like to have an idea how it performs in 2-4 years when games are more demanding in regards to CPU or have to keep up with newer GPUs.



Thing is as we push into the future more and more, games are getting to be better threaded. So if your argument is in 2-4 years, it will probably be a mute point. Remember AMD just signed a deal to optimize Bethseda games with AMD CPU/GPU's, that is a very large market. You also have the consoles running low clocked/low power AMD 8 core chips that isn't magically going to change things overnight, but if game developers want to take advantage of the performance there...well they are going to have to figure out how to multithread better.


----------



## HD64G (Mar 5, 2017)

Just see how much RAM speed affects gaming performance and general perfornance in Ryzen: http://www.eteknix.com/memory-speed-large-impact-ryzen-performance/

About windows 7 performance vs windows 10: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-4#post-38773158


----------



## Folterknecht (Mar 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Thing is as we push into the future more and more, games are getting to be better threaded. So if your argument is in 2-4 years, it will probably be a mute point. Remember AMD just signed a deal to optimize Bethseda games with AMD CPU/GPU's, that is a very large market. You also have the consoles running low clocked/low power AMD 8 core chips that isn't magically going to change things overnight, but if game developers want to take advantage of the performance there...well they are going to have to figure out how to multithread better.



That is all true, though the process (moving to multithreaded games) is really slow. Admittedly in the last ~2 years it developed some momentum, but I 'm probably right giving it an other 4-5 years before we are finally there.


----------



## mastrdrver (Mar 5, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> I'm still setting up benchmarks, then reinstall Windows, then bench everything new on all comparison systems + Ryzen.
> 
> At the same time working on VGA Bench rig, so I can get GTX 1080 Ti review done asap.
> 
> Maybe Wednesday for Ryzen



Are you having problems that some report, in that Windows 10 not allocating resources correctly with Ryzen?

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732


----------



## cdawall (Mar 5, 2017)

Folterknecht said:


> That is all true, though the process (moving to multithreaded games) is really slow. Admittedly in the last ~2 years it developed some momentum, but I 'm probably right giving it an other 4-5 years before we are finally there.



Based off of what? There are more and more games being released on the same engine that does perform well with multiple cores. All that has to happen is the big three engines go multithreaded and it will spread through everything. 

Also quite honestly if you use a comparison of a MOBA or MMORPG I will stop listening to anything you say.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 5, 2017)

mastrdrver said:


> Are you having problems that some report, in that Windows 10 not allocating resources correctly with Ryzen?
> 
> https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732


Haven't done any game testing yet and no plans to look at Windows 7


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Mar 5, 2017)

Ravenas said:


> Every interview I have read, AMD is comparing the Ryzen 1800k to the 6900K.



That's the kind of chip they are targeting with the Ryzen 7 product line. When the lower core count 5 and 3 series are released then we will see how other chips like the 7700k stack up. It is obvious AMD has made some marketing mistakes here and the stock price is suffering from unwarranted hysteria. The cheaper non SMT chips may be the best values for gaming even if performance is a bit less. I am typing this from a stock clocked I7 920 and still use a variety of "lousy" FX and even Phenom II systems for 2K and 4K gaming. I even use, (gasp), a stock FX 8320 with stock SLI GTX 1070s for 4K.


----------



## Folterknecht (Mar 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Based off of what? There are more and more games being released on the same engine that does perform well with multiple cores. All that has to happen is the big three engines go multithreaded and it will spread through everything.
> 
> Also quite honestly if you use a comparison of a MOBA or MMORPG I will stop listening to anything you say.



Should have been more specific - I meant using more than 4C/4T - sorry.

And regarding MOBA/MMORPG ... not my cup of tea, personally I 'm more into single player games.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 5, 2017)

Folterknecht said:


> Should have been more specific - I meant using more than 4C/4T - sorry.
> 
> And regarding MOBA/MMORPG ... not my cup of tea, personally I 'm more into single player games.



Those are very quickly moving to 8C just fine. Even crysis 3 was relatively well multithreaded


----------



## mroofie (Mar 5, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> I'm still setting up benchmarks, then reinstall Windows, then bench everything new on all comparison systems + Ryzen.
> 
> At the same time working on VGA Bench rig, so I can get GTX 1080 Ti review done asap.
> 
> Maybe Wednesday for Ryzen


and Gtx 1080 Ti ? :whistle:

(Just hyped )


----------



## erek (Mar 5, 2017)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Yeah, what's wrong with running a $5500 monster system (according to PC Partpicker) on an outdated $135 TN monitor? If you don't know, you're doing it wrong.
> 
> https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ymCvYr



even so, my system's platform is obsolete with it being a X99 platform   I do have some options left on the X99, and that's going the a Xeon E5 2699 V4 22-core, and also could double my ram and still remain viable


----------



## Killerdroid (Mar 5, 2017)

erek said:


> even so, my system's platform is obsolete with it being a X99 platform



My x79 hardware is still viable because it does what I need it to do.
What exactly do you want to do with your x99 system?


----------



## erek (Mar 5, 2017)

Killerdroid said:


> My x79 hardware is still viable because it does what I need it to do.
> What exactly do you want to do with your x99 system?



Well seems X99 / X79 are obsoleted by Z270 and X299   ... I hate how with the new platforms to get  Skylake-EP Xeon E5 2699 V5 32-core you need to move to the non-Enthusiast but Workstation/Server Platform LGA 3647 ...

It's lame how we don't have a path on LGA 2066 for the Xeon E5 2699 V5


----------



## Killerdroid (Mar 5, 2017)

erek said:


> Well seems X99 / X79 are obsoleted by Z270 and X299   ... I hate how with the new platforms to get  Skylake-EP Xeon E5 2699 V5 32-core you need to move to the non-Enthusiast but Workstation/Server Platform LGA 3647 ...
> 
> It's lame how we don't have a path on LGA 2066 for the Xeon E5 2699 V5



They only become obsolete when nothing new will run on them.

Are you really wanting a 32 core Xeon???
That many cores are good for nothing but servers or workstations. Not a good idea for gaming at all.

My Xeon X79 platform is a workstation and breezes through anything thrown at it.
I was looking at X99 kit a while back but the speed comparisons were barely noticeable. Saved myself a ton of cash.....

I'm not a gamer BTW so really don't need the latest hardware.
And unless the new stuff does the housework for me, I see no reason to upgrade.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 5, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> So with a simple answer, can anyone tell me ....have these chips lived up to the hype? Are they truly "Intel killers"? Or is it still too early to know?


hype? Not met. Intel killer? At multi-threaded workloads, yes. Too early to know? Not at all.

AMD had a botched launch, sending people hardware that wasn't truly compatible. Ryzen is a good platform, but in some workloads (ie gaming), Intel wins when comparing stock CPU speeds. OC'ed, Intel still gets more raw frequency, so wins.

So, Intel is not in trouble from Ryzen at all. but should AMD be able to push the clock speeds up... Intel could be beat in all workloads. AMD just needs these chips to clock to 5 GHz on "traditional" cooling methods like Kaby Lake does. Seeing how Kaby lake has 65W and 95W "OC" models, just like Ryzen, this might be possible in the future, but not right now.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 5, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> hype? Not met. Intel killer? At multi-threaded workloads, yes. Too early to know? Not at all.
> 
> AMD had a botched launch, sending people hardware that wasn't truly compatible. Ryzen is a good platform, but in some workloads (ie gaming), Intel wins when comparing stock CPU speeds. OC'ed, Intel still gets more raw frequency, so wins.
> 
> So, Intel is not in trouble from Ryzen at all. but should AMD be able to push the clock speeds up... Intel could be beat in all workloads. AMD just needs these chips to clock to 5 GHz on "traditional" cooling methods like Kaby Lake does. Seeing how Kaby lake has 65W and 95W "OC" models, just like Ryzen, this might be possible in the future, but not right now.



Comparing TDP's between companies? Brave...Those numbers don't equate to real world power consumption and never have. The current AMD chips are easily pulling over TDP under load at stock and any amount of overclocking is pushing that envelope way up. The Skylake and Kabylake chips do not consume anywhere near as much power overclocked or stock for that matter. 

That being said Ryzen does seem to be pulling comparable numbers to broadwell-e chips of the same core configuration.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Comparing TDP's between companies? Brave...Those numbers don't equate to real world power consumption and never have. The current AMD chips are easily pulling over TDP under load at stock and any amount of overclocking is pushing that envelope way up. The Skylake and Kabylake chips do not consume anywhere near as much power overclocked or stock for that matter.


Of course. Intel TDP is max draw, AMD TDP is required cooling.

However, those "targets" by AMD, to me, were clearly chosen to match Intel's offerings.

And yeah, Ryzen and broadwell-E are very similar, but Broadwell-E has quad-channel ram, more PCIe and more cache in that same power envelope. core config may be similar, but not to me, since to me, broadwell-E is a 10-core/20-thread chip (6950X). The rest of the chips are not using all their cores or PCIe root complex or both.


----------



## notb (Mar 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> This isn't a 5ghz quad core product. This is a slower running 8 core model. If all you want to do is game than wait for AMD to drop the quad and six core parts and see how they clock. As it stands now we are looking at a 5-20FPS difference at 1080P not exactly a deal breaker for most going from 140FPS to 120FPS. There are also games when that is reversed and AMD offers MORE performance, yet those games aren't mentioned.



Most people don't overclock at all, so it's really irrelevant in large scale (aka financial results) whether the 4/6 core chips overclock well or not.
And honestly, why would they? TDP for 8 cores is just 95W, while the tests shown they use around 120W in max stress (as much as Intel's 8 core). These are still fairly low numbers. Disabling 2 or 4 cores won't change much.

Moreover, think about product placement. Intel could release Skylake LGA1151 with excellent single-core performance and OC potential, because they're in totally different segment than their HEDT models (socket, features).
AMD can't really afford that. All Ryzen variants are on the same platform - no qualitative features distinguish them. Imagine what would happen to 8-core sales if 4 and 6-core alternatives (half the price) outclass them in gaming? This might as well kill the whole idea of Ryzen bringing back positive financial results at AMD (if it's still alive). 

As for the "games aren't mentioned"... oh come on. Reviewers usually test games that people actually play (AMD fans call this a bias towards Intel ). Do you remember the whole action around Polaris and Ashes of the Singularity? Basically under every test there was a comment complaining that this game wasn't included. But the game itself is fairly mediocre and as a result - not really popular among gamers. That said, I've seen a few people recommending buying it because "you'll finally see what your RX480 can do!"


----------



## cdawall (Mar 5, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Of course. Intel TDP is max draw, AMD TDP is required cooling.
> 
> However, those "targets" by AMD, to me, were clearly chosen to match Intel's offerings.
> 
> And yeah, Ryzen and broadwell-E are very similar, but Broadwell-E has quad-channel ram, more PCIe and more cache in that same power envelope. core config may be similar, but not to me, since to me, broadwell-E is a 10-core/20-thread chip (6950X). The rest of the chips are not using all their cores or PCIe root complex or both.



It is typical AMD marketing. Unluckily that doesn't lead to comparable numbers for a consumer, but it looks great on a piece of paper. You could very easily call a 6900K a 95w chip using AMD's rating scheme. They have released a mainstream CPU with HEDT consumption. I am sure later revisions will fix this a lot like we saw with B2 for B3 for Phenom 1 and C2 vs C3 for Phenom II (most consumers never saw C1 chips, but I had those as well).



notb said:


> Most people don't overclock at all, so it's really irrelevant in large scale (aka financial results) whether the 4/6 core chips overclock well or not.
> And honestly, why would they? TDP for 8 cores is just 95W, while the tests shown they use around 120W in max stress (as much as Intel's 8 core). These are still fairly low numbers. Disabling 2 or 4 cores won't change much.
> 
> Moreover, think about product placement. Intel could release Skylake LGA1151 with excellent single-core performance and OC potential, because they're in totally different segment than their HEDT models (socket, features).
> ...



Some of them are games currently played by people. I mean even games as old as crysis 3 show scaling across higher core counts. Most of the DX12/Vulkan benchmarks show excellent scaling etc. 

I also don't care if it isn't the best gaming chip, there actually exists a life outside of games.


----------



## notb (Mar 5, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Some of them are games currently played by people. I mean even games as old as crysis 3 show scaling across higher core counts. Most of the DX12/Vulkan benchmarks show excellent scaling etc.



I've never played Crysis and really don't care about this that much. On my "todo" list of games there are titles like Skyrim, Fallout 3/4, Witcher 1-2-3. Based on how much I've played in last 5 years, I'm covered for the next decade easily. By that time The Witcher 3 will run on Intel IGP. 



cadaveca said:


> I also don't care if it isn't the best gaming chip, there actually exists a life outside of games.



I also don't care about gaming results that much, while Ryzen is clearly an excellent choice for productivity, numerical computation, encoding and so on.
Problem is, AMD themselves are marketing Ryzen as a gaming solution. It was all about gaming in leaks and the launch event.
You've seen their website lately?
http://www.amd.com/en/products/desktops
For business and consumer solutions they recommend the refreshed APU (Bristol Ridge, AM4).

Both the (somehow theoretical) product placement and the (very real) lack of IGP mean, that is very unlikely that we'll see Ryzen 7 in vendor's business PCs and workstations - exactly the place where it could really shine. AFAIK companies like Dell, HP and Lenovo didn't show anything new, while we're already being flooded by Ryzen-based gaming rigs.
I'm pretty sure the initial issues/bugs don't help that either.

IMO big fail for AMD here.

BTW: I've just checked the very popular Passmark results, as Ryzen chips started to appear in the database. It's really not great, but still calculated on not enough samples to be treated seriously - I'll check very often from now on.
PC Mark (mixed single/multi thread):
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare-test.php?cmp[]=2874&cmp[]=2970&cmp[]=2969
Single thread:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare-test.php?cmp[]=2970&cmp[]=2863&cmp[]=2347


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 5, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Haven't done any game testing yet and no plans to look at Windows 7


----------



## HTC (Mar 5, 2017)

Caring1 said:


>



Same here 

I know it's not "supported" but, for now, it seems it's running better (game performance wise) then 10: that SMT problem in 10 seems not to be present in 7, @ the moment.

Ofc it may change in a near future, so there's that too ...


----------



## r9 (Mar 6, 2017)

Can somebody disable 4 cores and SMT and do some game benchmarks. Just to get a glimpse from what to expect from the Ryzen 3 cpus.
Also that would take out Windows scheduler optimization from the equation.
The issue with scheduler not distinguishing between actual and SMT cores, assigning threads to SMT that are four time slower than actual cores.
Moving threads between CCX and causing bottlenecking from split L3 cache and slow inter cache link.
Explained here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x7oaq/ryzens_memory_latency_problem_a_discussion_of/.


----------



## mastrdrver (Mar 6, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Haven't done any game testing yet and no plans to look at Windows 7



Sorry, I posted the wrong link originally (I thought I fixed it when I edited it originally). It should be this one:

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-2#post-38770630



> ```
> Logical Processor to Cache Map:
> **------  Data Cache          0, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
> **------  Instruction Cache   0, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
> ...


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 6, 2017)

Is there a way to disable the win 8/10 features in the bios and run it in legacy mode?


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 6, 2017)

HTC said:


> Same here
> 
> I know it's not "supported" but, for now, it seems it's running better (game performance wise) then 10: that SMT problem in 10 seems not to be present in 7, @ the moment.
> 
> Ofc it may change in a near future, so there's that too ...


Gigabyte Motherboards at least have drivers for W7, so we might see some tests yet.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 6, 2017)

erek said:


> Well seems X99 / X79 are obsoleted by Z270 and X299   ... I hate how with the new platforms to get  Skylake-EP Xeon E5 2699 V5 32-core you need to move to the non-Enthusiast but Workstation/Server Platform LGA 3647 ...
> 
> It's lame how we don't have a path on LGA 2066 for the Xeon E5 2699 V5


X79 and X99 are only obsolete if they don't do what you need them to. Don't let Intel or AMD tell you your shit is obsolete. Don't fall for marketing.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 6, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> X79 and X99 are only obsolete if they don't do what you need them to. Don't let Intel or AMD tell you your shit is obsolete. Don't fall for marketing.



except z270 and x299 are intel chipsets, so its Intel that is telling you it's obsolete with their 15% increased performance and $1000 pricetags.

Granted, AMD will definitely try to tell you that too, so your point still stands


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 6, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> X79 and X99 are only obsolete if they don't do what you need them to. Don't let Intel or AMD tell you your shit is obsolete. Don't fall for marketing.



It's why I got X99 despite being basically at the end of its life. Same for 5820k. And I even got a golden egg with decent overclock at stupendously low voltage. If Intel will go price crazy with X299, I'll go with AMD for sure. In fact I'm almost certain my next CPU will be AMD. Even if they are slightly worse, they are a viable option now. With Bulldozer, even though I wanted AMD, I just couldn't bring myself buying a sub par CPU. But Ryzen is none of that and if they continue optimizing it well in the future, they'll be doing just fine. I also hope AM4 will live as long as AM3+ has.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 6, 2017)

Great build and pictures, the Ram OC is pretty impressive too.


----------



## erek (Mar 6, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> except z270 and x299 are intel chipsets, so its Intel that is telling you it's obsolete with their 15% increased performance and *$1000 *pricetags.
> 
> Granted, AMD will definitely try to tell you that too, so your point still stands




$1723 MSRP for the 6950X, I was glad I went with the Xeon E5 2699 V3 in comparison...  it's crazy how much they're charging for that 10-core over the 8-core


----------



## cdawall (Mar 6, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Great build and pictures, the Ram OC is pretty impressive too.



I need to post screen shots I think I have 3600 stable now.


----------



## GhostRyder (Mar 6, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> wait... Doesn't intel chips display the exact same behavior? In some titles HT hinders performance??


Off and on, its been a bigger issue in the past but it seems to be less of an issue as of late.  Its been mostly ironed out but still gets missed from time to time.  AMD's is so new that its the same issue that has yet to be resolved.  I am more concerned with the gaming performance and software picking the correct paths for AMD's chips as that is what is holding them back currently.



cdawall said:


> I need to post screen shots I think I have 3600 stable now.


Sweet!  I am anxious to see it!


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 6, 2017)

I think everything around the AMD Ryzen issues has been overblown dramatically.

https://rejzor.wordpress.com/2017/03/06/amd-ryzen-post-release-thoughts-and-explanations/

Give it a bit of time. The thing was launched just few days ago. Expecting it to be problem free is impossible. Even Intel doesn't achieve that and their R&D is massive compared to AMD.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 6, 2017)

does the bus speed affect latency of cache at all?


----------



## remixedcat (Mar 7, 2017)

Nice review... and that case is pretty awesome! 

hey if anyone wants me to do VM testing you could either buy my savant remote or help me get a ryzen and mobo and ram for it I'd love to test my enterprise schtuff on ryzennnn


----------



## v12dock (Mar 7, 2017)

Ran GTA5 benchmarks All cores, 2+2 and 4+0 got some interesting results

*ALL CORES*
Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 45.970432, 163.938004, 128.145523
Pass 1, 119.287354, 217.714020, 171.838318
Pass 2, 4.416420, 217.432983, 165.460861
Pass 3, 34.690639, 220.990250, 163.177444
Pass 4, 5.903241, 282.794739, 160.556732

*2+2*
Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 38.985962, 140.932526, 109.690742
Pass 1, 101.366936, 185.058746, 148.739960
Pass 2, 93.142738, 270.337982, 146.436722
Pass 3, 83.021751, 216.397858, 156.194061
Pass 4, 58.845306, 277.290649, 143.464874


*4+0*
Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 44.442108, 141.503571, 108.908012
Pass 1, 75.166573, 243.929611, 149.105789
Pass 2, 96.578712, 197.682999, 151.453903
Pass 3, 82.772179, 223.718079, 155.372513
Pass 4, 5.186824, 273.237274, 144.562714

Huge difference in min frames


----------



## The Lighthouse (Mar 7, 2017)

Eurogamer's Digital Foundry is the top regarding the game performance... I hope they do the review too.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I need to post screen shots I think I have 3600 stable now.


Great, does it make any (big) difference going higher in ram frequencies like with Skylake/Kaby?

A prominent game where disabling SMT helps is Farcry 4 (+25fps afair) , didn't see a big effect on others in reviews so far.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> I think everything around the AMD Ryzen issues has been overblown dramatically.
> 
> https://rejzor.wordpress.com/2017/03/06/amd-ryzen-post-release-thoughts-and-explanations/
> 
> Give it a bit of time. The thing was launched just few days ago. Expecting it to be problem free is impossible. Even Intel doesn't achieve that and their R&D is massive compared to AMD.


I don't think anyone expected problem free... but this is crazy..

Boards dieing randomly with borked bios (crosshair), mkst immature set of boards/BIOS ive seen since x99 release (and it wasnt this bad), piss poor OS support resulting in poor gaming performance. Literally zero overclocking past xfr speeds with all cores.

AMD has price and performance over 8t...which few can use...that's it as far as I am concerned.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

You're again exaggerating. Dramatically. Why are you blaming AMD for something out of their control (motherboards and OS)? Sure, some blame falls on them, but you can't exclusively blame just them, that would be just ridiculous. Zero overclocking an octa core. Have you seen 6900k overclocks? Sure, they overclock higher. But is that feasible for day to day usage? With thermal output and high voltages, most certainly not.

Not to mention everyone was more laid back because frankly, no one expected AMD to actually deliver such good CPU. Why wasting resources on something that would be a fail, right? But it turned out to be pretty damn good.

And again, blaming underutilization of cores on AMD, instead on game studios, not making scalable games because they are so used to work with 4 cores thanks to Intel's long domination...


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

Im not exaggerating in the least.

1. Why haven't they worked more closely with MS and AIBs to alleviate some of these issues with scheduling and board problems?
2. I have seen the 6900K overclocks. They aren't great overclockers either. However, compared with 1800X, the 6900K starts off 400 MHz behind, its single core boost ends at 3.7 GHz, and it will overclock ALL cores to at least 4Ghz on water.. typically 4.1-4.3. 1800X on the other hand, is unable to get past its own boost, period. It also starts 400 MHz faster and ends up slower. 4.1-4.3 GHz is sustainable on water with a 6900K. Again, it can at least clock past its own boost... Ryzen, not so much.
3. It is good, right now, for those that can use more than 8t. 8t has been around long enough that game devs should be able to use them. This isn't Intel's fault. 
4. AMD is partially to blame. They had working silicon months ago. Why it wasn't moved to MS for testing to utilize its cores in a more timely manner, I don't know. My guess is that it was a rush to production. They realized that in order to really compete with Intel, they had to raise the clocks up to, pretty much, their limit leaving literally zero overclocking headroom past boost on all cores.

In time, its going to be worth a purchase... but right now, unless you use all its cores/threads (read more than 8) or just can't/don't want to afford the Intel system (which ironically is cheaper with a 7700K), there are better, more stable, and higher overclocking options out there.

EDIT: Think about cost too... 1700X is what, $390? 7700K  is $350 ( both at amazon - cheaper at newegg...). Boards cost about the same, memory cost is the same (maybe cheaper as AMD can't support high speeds - not that it matters). Gaming performance lags behind (for now), IPC lags behind (and will on this arch). Overclocking is nearly non-existent on 1800x. Multithreaded performance is off the charts better. Intel is a more stable platform at this time.

This is the source of my opinion. So again, unless one needs more than 8t, is this really a deal? Is it really worth it...now?


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

Some people seem to have problems understanding what IPC means. Ryzen doesn't "lag" behind 7700k, you're just not measuring IPC at same clock speed. The point of IPC is that if you take two processors running at exact same clock, then you can measure IPC. If one is faster than another at same clock, that means the better one has higher IPC. If one is at 4GHz and another at 4.5GHz, you're comparing oranges to broccoli...

And I'd take Ryzen over 7700k anytime. I was skeptical at first, but after few days of thinking and re-evaluating everything, the single threaded difference due to lower clock and lack of optimizations is irrelevant compared to massive boost you get from twice as many extra cores. What this means is you're not gimped as much as you'll very soon benefit from it. Or you already can benefit if you're a gamer and you also need a crunching workstation in the same box.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

Some people do have problems understanding what IPC means.. I'm not one of them however. Our review tested at the same clockspeeds and found IPC to be several percent behind (as did others)... but, thanks for the explanation on how it works. 

If I needed more than 8t, Ryzen would be the answer regardless of its mutiple teething issues and complete lack of overclocking on the flagship part. But I, and frankly most people, don't. So why, at this time, would I go with a system that costs more/the same (if you drop to 1700) and performs worse under 8t? Hold out for OS optimizations? Gaming to 'get on board' (w/e that means... again 8t+ has been out for several years...) and use more threads? Its like the Fury all over again... AMD looking almost TOO FAR into the future leaving it standing at the starting line today.

Again, a viable chip, any way its sliced, but there are some glaring shortcomings and teething issues which would put this on a 'wait and see' list for me (at best... 7700K seems like just as good of a choice ) if I wasn't using more than 8t on my PC. Considering 7700K rig costs less than or as much as but doesn't have these issues. Consumers are faced with a heck of a choice.


----------



## fullinfusion (Mar 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Im not exaggerating in the least.
> 
> 1. Why haven't they worked more closely with MS and AIBs to alleviate some of these issues with scheduling and board problems?
> 2. I have seen the 6900K overclocks. They aren't great overclockers either. However, compared with 1800X, the 6900K starts off 400 MHz behind, its single core boost ends at 3.7 GHz, and it will overclock ALL cores to at least 4Ghz on water.. typically 4.1-4.3. 1800X on the other hand, is unable to get past its own boost, period. It also starts 400 MHz faster and ends up slower. 4.1-4.3 GHz is sustainable on water with a 6900K. Again, it can at least clock past its own boost... Ryzen, not so much.
> ...


Well said and why I jumped off this bus a few days ago. We did expect issues but all they keep saying is time, we need time.. I'm sure glad when I bought my brand new car it didn't blow up because they needed time.. I'm outa here, these ryzen systems are just to much.. Wake me when they've sorted out all the bugs.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 7, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Great, does it make any (big) difference going higher in ram frequencies like with Skylake/Kaby?
> 
> A prominent game where disabling SMT helps is Farcry 4 (+25fps afair) , didn't see a big effect on others in reviews so far.



Haven't tested it to be honest. 



RejZoR said:


> You're again exaggerating. Dramatically. Why are you blaming AMD for something out of their control (motherboards and OS)? Sure, some blame falls on them, but you can't exclusively blame just them, that would be just ridiculous. Zero overclocking an octa core. Have you seen 6900k overclocks? Sure, they overclock higher. But is that feasible for day to day usage? With thermal output and high voltages, most certainly not.
> 
> Not to mention everyone was more laid back because frankly, no one expected AMD to actually deliver such good CPU. Why wasting resources on something that would be a fail, right? But it turned out to be pretty damn good.
> 
> And again, blaming underutilization of cores on AMD, instead on game studios, not making scalable games because they are so used to work with 4 cores thanks to Intel's long domination...



Intel basically writes the bios for their stuff all the manufacturers do is add a skin, AMD? well they basically tell everyone figure it out. That is why Intel doesn't have issues and amd does. 

As someone who has actually had these products (unlike you). They are an unfinished product. This shouldn't be on the market yet. No one is exaggerating when they say they aren't a smart buy for most of the market right now.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

Of course Intel has no problems, they are repackaging same thing over and over. But when they go out of the usual path, there ARE problems.

For example, the triple channel X58 board fried my OCZ RAM because it was feeding it too high voltage out of the box (default RAM speed was 1066MHz back then, mine was 1600MHz and even with XMP, board assumed it needs to really crank up voltage to accomodate 1600MHz somehow). Of course I realized that when it was too late and it already damaged RAM IC. System was working, but had constant bizarre issues. Until I narrowed it down to RAM. Then I bought a set of triple Corsair Dominator, even on QVL list. Wouldn't even boot. Had to use MEMOK button to make it post. after that, it worked fine after I forced the correct voltage for RAM, just to be sure.

Fast forward and I'm now on quad channel X99 board. Got 4x 8GB 2400MHz RAM (for quad channel, obviously) and no matter what voltage I use, system won't post or be stable at anything above 2400MHz. Who should I blame? RAM vendor, Intel, someone else? I just can't overclock RAM no matter what. Not even up to 2600MHz with loose timings.

Want to also know a fun thing about the CPU? Sure, it clocks high as whole to 4.5GHz at stupendously low voltage of 1.125V. But I can't get it stable at anything beyond that even if I feed it 1.3V. It just refuses to be stable even though temperatures never even hit 80°C under full stress test. It just makes no sense, goes up to that clock with less voltage than CPU has at stock and just stops dead at certain clock. But Intel is totes problem free, everything always works as expected and all that yo!


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

That isn't Intel, that was the board maker/bios that caused that issue with your ram. And you are talking X58.. When did that come out? Like 2010???????

Well, considering I am sitting here at 4x8GB DDR4 3200 CL 15...... I would look at the board/bios/ram, and not Intel ( a poor IMC is not Intel's fault... nature of the silicon... same with AMD).

I've seen bigger voltage walls...



I don't understand what you are getting at here, though... Your first issue was not with Intel but the board maker/bios, your second is likely the same, or you just have a sub-par IMC... that happens too! Last, why is this a platform "problem" with your CPU not being able to hit more than 4.5GHz?


Rej, I would love to have a discussion with you, but its hard to hit a constantly moving and sometimes unrelated targets while seemingly glossing over the points made...


----------



## cdawall (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Of course Intel has no problems, they are repackaging same thing over and over. But when they go out of the usual path, there ARE problems.
> 
> For example, the triple channel X58 board fried my OCZ RAM because it was feeding it too high voltage out of the box (default RAM speed was 1066MHz back then, mine was 1600MHz and even with XMP, board assumed it needs to really crank up voltage to accomodate 1600MHz somehow). Of course I realized that when it was too late and it already damaged RAM IC. System was working, but had constant bizarre issues. Until I narrowed it down to RAM. Then I bought a set of triple Corsair Dominator, even on QVL list. Wouldn't even boot. Had to use MEMOK button to make it post. after that, it worked fine after I forced the correct voltage for RAM, just to be sure.
> 
> ...



Intel had an issue 10 years ago with a motherboard feeding too much voltage? Sounds real pertinent to now.

I have had zero issues overclocking to over 3200 depending on which sticks I have slapped into my x99 build.

You have overclocked your 5820k from 3.3ghz to 4.5 that's 1.1ghz. What on earth are you complaining about? That sounds like terrible overclocking...way worse than the -25mhz my 1800x got above xfr.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

Just because it happened 10 years ago (it wasn't even 10, but ok), that makes it irrelevant? I wonder if you're hold yourself up to same standards when we'll be looking back at Ryzen 10 years in the future...

Also, as far as OC goes, nevermind 2 more cores and 4 more threads on Ryzen, right? And the fact that Ryzen is designed on LPP which basically means from ground up it won't overclock well. Totally not relevant right?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

Sorry, X58 came out in 11/2008. Our fault... ~8+ years ago.

Anyway, you should read my posts again bud... here you are, back on the multiple threads thing when THE VERY FIRST THING I POSTED mentioned if you need more than 8t as a disclaimer......



EarthDog said:


> AMD has price and performance over 8t...





EarthDog said:


> In time, its going to be worth a purchase... but right now, unless you use all its cores/threads (read more than 8)





EarthDog said:


> So again, unless one needs more than 8t, is this really a deal? Is it really worth it...now?





EarthDog said:


> If I needed more than 8t, Ryzen would be the answer regardless of its mutiple teething issues and complete lack of overclocking on the flagship part.





EarthDog said:


> Again, a viable chip, any way its sliced, but there are some glaring shortcomings and teething issues which would put this on a 'wait and see' list for me (at best... 7700K seems like just as good of a choice ) if I wasn't using more than 8t on my PC. Considering 7700K rig costs less than or as much as but doesn't have these issues. Consumers are faced with a heck of a choice.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 7, 2017)

I apologize 9 years ago. Nehalem hit the market in 2008 and again the issue you saw was a specific board issue not a platform wide problem like we are seeing with ryzen. There are applications ryzen is phenomenal at, there are others it is not. It is too early to tell how the design will pan out since the current support is so bad it isn't even funny. 

As for overclocking stop making excuses, stop changing the subject. 8c/16t overclock fine with Haswell-e


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 7, 2017)

Yet everyone is blaming AMD for the problem with the AM4 motherboards now, no-one's blaming the board makers. It's all AMD's fault, because they made a shitty platform that can't do X, Y and Z, but apparently in the case above, just because it's old and Intel, it's the board makers fault and has nothing to do with Intel. Nice double standards...

Most of you on this forum haven't been around long enough to see the kind of shit that happened back in the days with PCs. I remember buying more RAM for my onboard S3 Virge whatever and for whatever reason, it never worked, even though it was the right kind of memory and it was fitted properly into the memory slots. RAM upgrades used to be a crap shot and you had motherboards that were jumpered properly, but you still ended up with the wrong processor speed (hello AMD 486 DX2-80 that was running at a 100MHz and scared the crap out of me as I thought something was broken). Let's not even talk about Cyrix and how well their stuff worked, or some of the fun issues VIA had, like not being able to deliver 500mA to the USB ports on many of their chipsets... 

Nothing has changed much, except everything has gotten a whole heap harder as everything is running at speeds up to 1000x times faster than back then. So yes, issues happen and hopefully most of these things can be addressed via UEFI updates, as long as the board makers care. The latter is a big concern though, as even on recent Intel boards, they seem to be slipping. I have had so many issues with my current board that you have no idea. RAM, RAM again, XMP not working, NVMe drive not showing up in the NVMe menu in the UEFI, the board not working with Windows 10 sleep mode (lost the boot record twice on my SSD) etc. Am I blaming Intel for that? No, it's Gigabyte's fault for making a POS UEFI and this is my last Gigabyte board until they prove that they can make a UEFI that's not targeted towards tweens that wants a UEFI that looks like it's from some Taiwanese MMORPG. I'm getting sick and tired of all the "gaming" BS, give me a stable motherboard that works, regardless of chipset.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

My X99 is unable to wake from any kind of sleep. It goes into sleep and when it has to wake up, it just cycles the boot like a retard. From day 1. On platform that should be more than just mature at this point. Should I blame ASUS, Intel or Microsoft, I don't know... The point I'm portraying here is that no one is flawless. And having system that can't use sleep mode at all a bit more important than the fact you can't overclock (already top of the line) CPU.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> My X99 is unable to wake from any kind of sleep. It goes into sleep and when it has to wake up, it just cycles the boot like a retard. From day 1. On platform that should be more than just mature at this point. Should I blame ASUS, Intel or Microsoft, I don't know... The point I'm portraying here is that no one is flawless. And having system that can't use sleep mode at all a bit more important than the fact you can't overclock (already top of the line) CPU.


My own OC'd 6950X/X99.3200 MHz memory sleeps fine.  Sounds like an issue with your particular config. Funny, that's a similar problem as to what AMD has... bad review configs. 


ROFL

So you're as incapable of building a proper system as AMD's marketing staff is! Excellent!


J/k.


----------



## The Lighthouse (Mar 7, 2017)

People seem to completely forgot (or not old enough to remember / had no interested in PC at that time) that Intel had massive problems with HT when it was introduced. We were seeing massive up to 20% performance loss due to Intel's new arch.

As well as when Athlon came out. There were massive patches for Athlon processors because they were new. 

People said Bulldozer was terrible (due to, again, new arch) and will be obsolete so fast thus better to buy i3 instead. From what I seen at AdoredTV, Bulldozer, at worst,  particularly did not lag further behind i5/i7. At best, it now beats 2500k at least. People who bought i3 at that time by following that advice were probably forced to buy yet another new cpus because i3 got completely obsoleted.

No matter how hard you are prepared, there will be problems with the launch, especially when you try to push new things.


Also, I really hope people should stop using games as CPU benchmark or at least take with a grain of salt. They are just really unreliable due to the fact that:
-Processor-specific optimizations.
-Various amount of factors and quality of the testings done by reviewers.


1) Processor-specific optimizations and API issues : 
-Those who have any modern CPUs realize they cannot play a lot of old dos games because the games simply ran too fast or glitches. You need either blessings from GOG.com or use programs that make CPU cores slow enough for those games.
-Bethsada's games' physics go wild as soon as you go over 60 fps, GTA 5 begins to lag after a certain fps is exceeded.
-You cannot play Mass Effect 1 well without glitches on modern AMD CPUs, because it automatically forces to use 3D Now when AMD CPU is detected, but no modern AMD CPU supports 3D Now.
-There are several games that results would flip based on what API is used (DX11 vs DX12)

2) Various amount of factors and quality of the testings done by reviewers.
-A tester usually has no clue what 'part' of the game he/she is testing in the first place. Some point it's draw call  getting wrecked. Or Physics-related, or that, or that.
One of the examples would be Gamers Nexus's testing of Watch Dog 2. Basically the author tests the game by putting a player character in very empty street, barely moving back and forth for 30 seconds. Repeat that three times. Obviously this does not actually force CPU much because he never tested in-city environment where there are a lot of objects and interactive points moving around. Not to mention driving car also brings several new issues, which are not accounted for Gamers Nexus review. At such environment, it was more of renderer pipeline speed test.
-BF1 Multiplayer's environment always changes because each game is different from another. Some sites test with multiple rounds to get 'average', while others don't.


While productivity programs are not free from this blame, games in particular really suffer optimization issues. In essence, those game reviews tell us that *game developers have more time working on Intel CPU rather than AMD CPU.*

Now, this may be a valid argument for preferring Intel CPU because it still means that you will get more performance (or it seems) from Intel CPU. But you cannot say this AMD CPU is bad for the gaming because CPU itself is not directly related to the gaming performance to certain degree. Unless it is really lags behind like Bulldozer, it is not appropriate to say Ryzen is sucking at gaming. 

I mean, it is also not like Bulldozer that was really far behind everything else. If we forget about the gaming Ryzen really takes top. And for gaming I only see maybe 10% performance loss, at max 15%, for 100+ fps average results. That's far more than acceptable. Not to mention as AdoredTV showed us that it does not mean Ryzen is going to lag further behind either (probably more likely opposite would happen.)


Cores vs single-thread: I still remember when I was getting 2600K for my PC, people told me it was the waste of money since 2500k would give same performance for less money. But these days I don't see that is being true as well. Even during Sandy days the games were slowly moving to multi-core design. And its speed is now insanely accelerated when AMD got a hold of console market and pushed for multiple cores with weak single core performance chips into the consoles.


Finally, after several years, I am looking for building a new PC. I really have no allegiance to any companies. I pretty much flipped on Nvidia and Radeon/AMD for graphics cards and never had bought any AMD CPUs for my own PC because they were not really viable when I was looking for new CPUs.

I will wait for a while. I am getting 1080 TI for my new PC (of course custom cooler design one) so I still have some time left to see how it is going. But unless Intel suddenly give me a nice octa-core processor with decent pricing during that time, it seems I am getting a AMD CPU first time ever since 1994.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> My own OC'd 6950X/X99.3200 MHz memory sleeps fine.  Sounds like an issue with your particular config. Funny, that's a similar problem as to what AMD has... bad review configs.
> 
> 
> ROFL
> ...



So, it's "issue with particular config" and "you don't know how to build a system" when it's Intel, but when it's AMD, ALL are bad because of some people had issues. On how many levels of double standards are you on? 5, maybe 6 ?


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> So, it's "issue with particular config" and "you don't know how to build a system" when it's Intel, but when it's AMD, ALL are bad because of some people had issues. On how many levels of double standards are you on? 5, maybe 6 ?


No double standards at all. My point was made, and really, you personally have nothing to do with it.

The fact remains that AMD sent out boxes full of shit to reviewers. My own personal testing has confirmed such; AMD did not choose right memory for review kits. The Ryzen chips need specific memory sticks, single-sided sticks, in order to work properly. Board used doesn't really matter. If they are incapable of appropriately dealing with such a detail, there is NO REASON for anyone to think that they are capable of "fixing" issues they couldn't even deal with themselves for their reviews.


----------



## thesmokingman (Mar 7, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> No double standards at all. My point was made, and really, you personally have nothing to do with it.



Except you made a personal joke on him.

J/K?


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 7, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> Except you made a personal joke on him.
> 
> J/K?


Very true. That's part of it. He has an issue he cannot identify a fix for. So did AMD, clearly, by what they sent to reviewers. Yet I was able to fix it by simply changing memory kits. How he fixes his issue, by my own system, could be fixed with a "proper" config in a similar way.

So how come these two parties have similar issues? You decide. I wasn't joking at all, but I can see how it may have been perceived as such.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> No double standards at all. My point was made, and really, you personally have nothing to do with it.
> 
> The fact remains that AMD sent out boxes full of shit to reviewers. My own personal testing has confirmed such; AMD did not choose right memory for review kits. The Ryzen chips need specific memory sticks, single-sided sticks, in order to work properly. Board used doesn't really matter. If they are incapable of appropriately dealing with such a detail, there is NO REASON for anyone to think that they are capable of "fixing" issues they couldn't even deal with themselves for their reviews.



Do you seriously believe marketing people are experts in system building? Most of them (in all companies) are tie wearing penguins with very basic knowledge of what they are actually selling. That's a harsh reality. It does look sad when any company doesn't double check things to make their product shine when it's sent out to reviewers. I'm not saying you have to cheat and rig things, but at least make sure everything is in check. I'm not going to argue with that, whoever was in charge for the review components should be slapped.

So, we're at a point where the product is not bad, it's just some people doing bad job. That's quite a difference...


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> So, we're at a point where the product is not bad, it's just some people doing bad job. That's quite a difference...


It is. To be completely honest, the caveats to getting a decent Ryzen experience are a bit heavy, but there isn't really anything truly wrong with the platform, for sure.



RejZoR said:


> Do you seriously believe marketing people are experts in system building? Most of them (in all companies) are tie wearing penguins with very basic knowledge of what they are actually selling. That's a harsh reality.



That simply shows they have the wrong people doing the job. I am quite angry that AMD failed so hard on this, and I cannot blame any site for any negativity they might have towards Ryzen. I think Summit Ridge is a great platform, but it was not marketed correctly, and its pricing is out of whack due to that marketing.

But what doesn't really change is the performance. It's pretty good already, and it can be improved a bit, but anyone expecting vast differences is being misguided.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 7, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Very true. That's part of it. He has an issue he cannot identify a fix for. So did AMD, clearly, by what they sent to reviewers. Yet I was able to fix it by simply changing memory kits. How he fixes his issue, by my own system, could be fixed with a "proper" config in a similar way.
> 
> So how come these two parties have similar issues? You decide. I wasn't joking at all, but I can see how it may have been perceived as such.



You know, not everyone's a reviewer and have unlimited access to hardware. I sometimes wish I was still a reviewer, as it sure made life much easier when something didn't work. I can't afford to go out and buy a new motherboard, SSD and RAM to see which part is causing the weird issues I've been having. What is amazing though is that I've had more firmware updates for my SSD than UEFI updates for this POS Gigabyte motherboard.



RejZoR said:


> Do you seriously believe marketing people are experts in system building? Most of them (in all companies) are tie wearing penguins with very basic knowledge of what they are actually selling. That's a harsh reality.



Ok, sorry, but I happen to know the marketing people at AMD personally and they're nothing like this, in fact, most of them are very competent people that have been in the business for a very long time. But yes, I've dealt with utterly useless marketing people over the years too, but AMD and Intel generally don't hire them.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

I mean, it has always been like this. If you want perfect experience you need to STRICTLY follow the QVL list for RAM support. Be it Intel or AMD.

EDIT:
Yeah, it sucks not having the right gear around for testing. If I want to rule something out, I basically have to buy new component. Instead of just swaping with stuff you have laying around...


----------



## alucasa (Mar 7, 2017)

All this means it's better to wait, for now, for us low Earthings who have limited fund.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 7, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> You know, not everyone's a reviewer and have unlimited access to hardware. I sometimes wish I was still a reviewer, as it sure made life much easier when something didn't work. I can't afford to go out and buy a new motherboard, SSD and RAM to see which part is causing the weird issues I've been having. What is amazing though is that I've had more firmware updates for my SSD than UEFI updates for this POS Gigabyte motherboard.



That's what has me a bit angry about this; we could have been given clear guidelines on what hardware to buy, and there might be some users that bought stuff on launch day that are stuck with issue simply because they weren't educated on what to buy. This has been an issue at PC stores since day one; sales staff tend to not always have the right info, and it should be the onus of the hardware makers to educate these people properly. They'd sell more if they did!



TheLostSwede said:


> Ok, sorry, but I happen to know the marketing people at AMD personally and they're nothing like this, in fact, most of them are very competent people that have been in the business for a very long time. But yes, I've dealt with utterly useless marketing people over the years too, but AMD and Intel generally don't hire them.




So what happened then? Why, when Ryzen is supposed to support 2666 MHz memory, did AMD not assure that every kit sent out was capable of doing so? Why did reviewers have problems with memory? Memory AMD sent them?



alucasa said:


> All this means it's better to wait, for now, for us low Earthings who have limited fund.



You don't need to wait; you just need to buy the right stuff the first time. I have a system sitting next to me that works great, but yes, as a reviewer, I do have access to a huge number of parts to be able to assemble such, and that's the only reason why I do. I was sent boards and a chip only, so choosing memory was up to me, and I found a kit easily out of the like 12 I have.


----------



## thesmokingman (Mar 7, 2017)

alucasa said:


> All this means it's better to wait, for now, for us low Earthings who have limited fund.



Yeap, always been this way. Early adopters have all the fun but they have to deal with the expected teething issues. Part of the problem with Ryzen's release was that many early adopters went into it ignoring the caveats of being an early adopter. Hell, even many reviewers went full you know what and acted like they expected krabby lake levels of integration.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 7, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> So what happened then? Why, when Ryzen is supposed to support 2666 MHz memory, did AMD not assure that every kit sent out was capable of doing so? Why did reviewers have problems with memory? Memory AMD sent them?



Because it was what they got from their partners for free? That's normally how it works. Both Intel and AMD tend to give out whatever crap they can blag, as they're too cheap to pay for motherboards and RAM. It's stupid, I know, but this isn't the first time review kit has been sent out that's junk. Intel used to send Intel boards (that were junk), but as they don't really make boards any more, it seems that they send out partner boards now, which they get for free.

I remember many moons ago when I worked at PCW in the UK, I got some new motherboard from VIA with support for something like DDR-266 or 333 and got a single memory module from Winchip or some other useless brand like that. It wouldn't run at 400MHz regardless of settings and VIA claimed it should work. Do you think I was happy that I wasted hours upon hours to test that crap?

Or when I got the first PC in for review with a what I think was an Ultra ATA/100 or 133 controller and nothing I did for three days made it work at the right speed. Turned out Promise has shipped it with the wrong firmware...

This really doesn't surprise me at all. At least these days, AMD doesn't have to ship out Biostar and Asus boards without the company logo to try and make sure the motherboard makers avoid the wrath of Intel. Shit, when AMD launched the slot-A Athlon it was a total nightmare. We spent two or three days in the lab with the company that provided the system to get it to run stable, as the BIOS was so damn buggy and the AMD chipset had several issues. I think we had pretty much the same issues that AMD is having now. I had kind of forgotten about that. It was a truly awful launch and I guess the slotted processors were never that popular for AMD. It's really history repeating itself some 18 years later...

_"MSI tried this strategy and ended up having to recall a portion of their 6167 (Athlon) motherboards due to stability issues associated with their "modified" design."

"Until the Athlon truly makes its introduction into the server market, we probably won't see more than four DIMM slots on a Slot-A motherboard simply because of DRAM integrity issues, as well as cost. The Fester, like the other two boards tested, had problems with 256MB or registered DIMMs, regardless of size, which limits the maximum memory to 384MB for now"

"The phrase that comes to mind when looking at the BIOS setup of the 7IX is "it works and that's it" which is the closest you can get to completely explaining it's BIOS setup in five words."

"What most people took this as meaning that the SD11 would be the ideal overclocker's board but, it turns out that the "feature" wasn't implemented in the BIOS at the time of production."

"Power supply compatibility issues will be a big factor with the first batch of Athlon motherboards, which is why the boards that are available now are basically engineering samples released to the public to find out what works and what doesn't. "_

And so on...

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/384/

How quickly we forget... Or maybe I'm just an old fart


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 7, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> You don't need to wait; you just need to buy the right stuff the first time. I have a system sitting next to me that works great, but yes, as a reviewer, I do have access to a huge number of parts to be able to assemble such, and that's the only reason why I do. I was sent boards and a chip only, so choosing memory was up to me, and I found a kit easily out of the like 12 I have.



Hi @cadaveca - I'm an anorexic ball hair away from buying a Ryzen chip (1800X).  Can you advise me on memory to buy?  I know Ryzen prefers single sided DIMM's but obviously e-tailers tend not to say what is what.  I'll be using a Thermalright Le Grand Macho (so need to get an AM4 mount) unless I go with the Asus Crosshair board.  What would you recommend to me for the easiest Ryzen early adopter, russian roulette experience? 

BTW - I'm coming to Canada on vacation in Summer (Vancouver with BC road tour) so be nice or I'll punch your country in the asphalt.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Hi @cadaveca - I'm an anorexic ball hair away from buying a Ryzen chip (1800X).  Can you advise me on memory to buy?  I know Ryzen prefers single sided DIMM's but obviously e-tailers tend not to say what is what.  I'll be using a Thermalright Le Grand Macho (so need to get an AM4 mount) unless I go with the Asus Crosshair board.  What would you recommend to me for the easiest Ryzen early adopter, russian roulette experience?
> 
> BTW - I'm coming to Canada on vacation in Summer (Vancouver with BC road tour) so be nice or I'll punch your country in the asphalt.



What motherboard are you planning to buy for it?


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> What motherboard are you planning to buy for it?



Ahem...cough.. ahem - the Asus Crosshair (it is the only AM4 with AM3 compatible mountings).  Otherwise I need to contact Thermalright to get the adapter kit.  I've heard rumours though that board is terrible....


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

Refer to this list and pick the exact same memory kit as listed:
http://dlcdnet.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb...IR-VI-HERO_DRAM_QVL_forAMDRyzenProcessors.pdf

This is imo the only way to be 100% sure it'll work.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 7, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Ahem...cough.. ahem - the Asus Crosshair (it is the only AM4 with AM3 compatible mountings).  Otherwise I need to contact Thermalright to get the adapter kit.  I've heard rumours though that board is terrible....



Asus has a list of QVL modules here http://dlcdnet.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb...sors.pdf?_ga=1.75806933.1372906845.1486212314

G.Skill and some Corsair modules seem like a good bet, but I can't find most of the G.Skill modules listed.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 7, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Ahem...cough.. ahem - the Asus Crosshair (it is the only AM4 with AM3 compatible mountings).  Otherwise I need to contact Thermalright to get the adapter kit.  I've heard rumours though that board is terrible....


Well, what board do we have in this thread? What memory did cdawall use? Each board's BIOS, at this point, will be tuned for specific modules. So what works on one board won't work on another, most likely. QVL suggestions are good, but at the same time, I'd talk to people that have the exact same hardware you plan to buy.


I am currently using ASRock Taichi and two modules form this kit : https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/GSkill/F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW/. I was able to simply enable XMP and have 3200 MHz work fully, but XFR is disabled (which is no problem since CPU OC and XFR should not be used together IMHO).


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Haven't tested it to be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I think they will sort out the problems, I'm positive. So Ryzen is rightfully at the market now and can be recommended as well, but always with a grain of salt too.


----------



## Grings (Mar 7, 2017)

Crucials website already lists some 3466 2x8gb sets as compatible with the crosshair 6 and taichi/fatality pro gaming


----------



## notb (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> And again, blaming underutilization of cores on AMD, instead on game studios, not making scalable games because they are so used to work with 4 cores thanks to Intel's long domination...



So what? You think all game creators will jump to optimizing for 16 threads, because that's what AMD offers for high-end gaming desktops? Get real. 
Game studios have to earn money by selling copies, not race for the best fps possible on high-end desktops.
Most people will still game on 4 cores - either from Intel or AMD (Ryzen 3/5 will be mainstream, Ryzen 7 is for enthusiasts).
And keep in mind we're still talking about desktops, while most PCs are laptops (also among frequent gamers).

Intel manages to squeeze a 65W i7 down to 45W laptop-sensible version (e.g. 6700 -> 6700HQ).

Ryzen 7 has a nominal TDP of 95W, but it's been shown that it can suck 120W in max load.
This means that - to keep 8 cores - AMD would have to cut power draw by half and that would simply obliterate single-thread performane (already not mind-blowing).
So yes, AMD managed to make an excellent flagship 8C/16T CPU for the Ryzen line.
But in the long run, when market becomes saturated with Ryzen CPUs, it's highly probable that most of them (by far) will be 4 core units.

Above all, a CPU design has to be very flexible to work well in many different tasks, in many different types of PCs.
However, a GPU doesn't have to be flexible. It can concentrate on multi-thread performance above anything else.
Why change this status quo? Why force game studios to spend huge money on optimizing games for the minority of >4C owners, when it really doesn't affect the image quality nor FPS?

Sure, if you're very brave, you can blame all the game studios that they don't utilize more cores than 99% of their clients have.
But we have (at least) equally good reasons to blame AMD for not making a CPU that matches the current state gaming market.


----------



## Aenra (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> I'm almost certain my next CPU will be AMD. Even if they are slightly worse, they are a viable option now. With Bulldozer, even though I wanted AMD, I just couldn't bring myself buying a sub par CPU. But Ryzen is none of that and if they continue optimizing it well in the future, they'll be doing just fine. I also hope AM4 will live as long as AM3+ has.



Funny.. Despite aaaaall my complaints (valid ones mind you), my fondest memories are with AMD chips, lol. There is an element of perversion in there somehwere, granted; but nonetheless.

You know what my number one complaint is? Not my FX9370 and that insane heat, not my elec. bills, not my old Atis, none of the usual. The goddamm drivers, that's what. How many times i updated only to have infinite reboots, bugs, crashes and what not, i don't even remember. If only they'd sort that out, can be really a problem.

Anyway, lol, likewise. While my current rig is faster than i thought possible (straight upgrade from the Fx mentioned above), i already know i won't be going the Intel way again. For a number of reasons unrelated to 4% or 9% performance differences


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

notb said:


> So what? You think all game creators will jump to optimizing for 16 threads, because that's what AMD offers for high-end gaming desktops? Get real.
> Game studios have to earn money by selling copies, not race for the best fps possible on high-end desktops.
> Most people will still game on 4 cores - either from Intel or AMD (Ryzen 3/5 will be mainstream, Ryzen 7 is for enthusiasts).
> And keep in mind we're still talking about desktops, while most PCs are laptops (also among frequent gamers).
> ...



You do realize Intel measures TDP at base clock, right? Also, that laptop version of 6700 has very little to do with the desktop version. It has been this way for years. Also, 16 threads laptop CPU. Haven't seen that one yet have we?


----------



## erocker (Mar 7, 2017)

This thread is for benching/overclocking results, yet all I see is squabbling. Please use this thread for discussions other than with overclocking/benching Ryzen: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-ryzen-discussion-thread.231316/page-6#post-3615294

Thanks.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 7, 2017)

My plan is

My main rig will go dual-socket = E5-2683v3 x 2.
My media rig will switch from i7-6700 to Ryzen 1700.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 7, 2017)

Grings said:


> Crucials website already lists some 3466 2x8gb sets as compatible with the crosshair 6 and taichi/fatality pro gaming



That doesn't mean the XMP will work or that they will run at rated speeds...I can tell you from using the Crosshair VI no XMP works


----------



## notb (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> You do realize Intel measures TDP at base clock, right? Also, that laptop version of 6700 has very little to do with the desktop version. It has been this way for years. Also, 16 threads laptop CPU. Haven't seen that one yet have we?



Well..., THW tested the flagship chips:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skylake-intel-core-i7-6700k-core-i5-6600k,4252-11.html
6700K (TDP 91W) needed 101W - that's 10W over or +11%. THW called this "not really acceptable", which I have to agree.
Now a test of Ryzen (same page):
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-11.html
Stressed 1800X (TDP 95W) needed 112W - 17W over, +18%. And this is at base clocks (what about XFR?).
I've seen tests (e.g. WCCFTECH) suggesting it can reach 120W.

We're used to the idea that Intel measures a "typical" consumption under load, while AMD gives you a physical limit. It's not valid anymore.
AMD wanted Ryzen to have a TDP significantly below Intel HEDT and they did just that. End of story.

As for the design differenes between 6700 and 6700HQ - I won't argue with that, but look at the comparison below.
Intel gave us (at the same time) 2 CPUs:
                                      6700        6700HQ
TDP [W]                        65            45               -30.8%
Base Freq [GHz]           3.4           2.6               -23.5%               
3Dmark firestrike         10200      7190            -29.5%

No magic here - it's the same technology and performance scales with power usage.
The issue remains valid: will AMD show a 8-core mobile Ryzen with nice performance scaling?
Or will the mobile lineup end at Ryzen 5?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> You do realize Intel measures TDP at base clock, right? Also, that laptop version of 6700 has very little to do with the desktop version. It has been this way for years. Also, 16 threads laptop CPU. Haven't seen that one yet have we?


Pretty sure they include boost too. If not, I'd wonder if AMD works the same way considering how quickly bulldozer/vishera/ryzen seem to ramp up.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

Intel's own Arc page states TDP measurement is done with base clock.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

Link please.. 

And AMDs? They use more power at stock and seem to scale worse overclocking...

Edit: after thinking a bit.. seems counterintuitive considering how boost works in the first place (if it's under power, temps, workload, etc it boosts). If the tdp is without boost.... how would it boost in the first place????

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us...ology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html


----------



## cdawall (Mar 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Link please..
> 
> And AMDs? They use more power at stock and seem to scale worse overclocking...
> 
> ...



He is correct however







Which makes sense since intel recommends this for cooling


----------



## The Lighthouse (Mar 7, 2017)

Wait, Intel has that liquid cooling solution?

I am so out of the loop after years of not caring about PC hardware. Is it actually usable or just slightly better than their sorry excuse of that stock cooler?


----------



## cdawall (Mar 7, 2017)

The Lighthouse said:


> Wait, Intel has that liquid cooling solution?
> 
> I am so out of the loop after years of not caring about PC hardware. Is it actually usable or just slightly better than their sorry excuse of that stock cooler?



It is an H70/H80 with a different fan as far as I know


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

Thanks cdawall..

One has to wonder how boost works for all cores (as on some processors all cores go up a couple of bins)... or in general if the tdp is base clock. 

And I still ask... how does amd do it? He mentioned it like there was a worthwhile difference bwtween the two, but no further details...


----------



## cdawall (Mar 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Thanks cdawall..
> 
> One has to wonder how boost works for all cores (as on some processors all cores go up a couple of bins)... or in general if the tdp is base clock.



I honestly don't know I know my Xeon is tagged as a 120W chip (THIS IS AN ES), but it is labeled as 1.6ghz, all 16 cores turbo to 2, 8 turbo to 2.4/2.5 IIRC and one core will do 3.0. I can't really test CPU only power consumption, but it doesn't draw that under any workload I have seen.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> And I still ask... how does amd do it? He mentioned it like there was a worthwhile difference bwtween the two, but no further details...


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

Ryzen has that inherent extreme power optimization to it because AMD was forced to use 28/32 nm nodes for so long, totally optimizing Excavator with 28nm on low power and moving it over to Zen as well. Combined with 14nm LPP it's a pure win now. Intel's 14nm node is still better, but their architecture isn't in that regard.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> One has to wonder how boost works for all cores (as on some processors all cores go up a couple of bins)... or in general if the tdp is base clock.


Should be obvious. When power draw is below the defined TDP, boost is allowed. As you know, we can adjust these TDP limits in BIOS and in Intel's XTU tool, and we also use Turbo to OC.

AMD and Ryzen, as far as I understand, it is the same, but the max XFR speed is hard-coded into each CPU individually, meaning that different CPUs of the same SKU can actually have different max Turbo speeds. Need to spend more time playing in the BIOS to figure out how AMD is doing it exactly, to be honest. I assume it is adjustable also, given that I am pretty sure that AMD said they'd be offering per-core clock adjustments in the future (not sure how exactly).

It'll be interesting to see how that affects how we approach overclocking this platform.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 7, 2017)

So I ended up driving an hour to get a motherboard locally last night, and got my hands on the Aorus x370.  Hands down the crappiest board i've ever owned (although the led effects were cool)... system ran great at 39.25x100 @ 1.45v (Ryzen 1700) with LLC at high.... until the 1.5 of the board's ramslots went bad and the system would not post even after cmos reset and flip to secondary bios.

I can still boot in single channel on the other two slots but man... what the hell.  Turns out you can kill the actual slot on these by bumping dram termination voltage (last thing I did to try to get it stable at 12-13-13-13-36 @ 2400).  do not recommend.  Motherboard swaps are a pain in the butt.

How does .5 of a ramslot go bad you ask? Well on the one that's totally dead the system just sits there with a 0d code... on the other it acts like its going to boot (but takes about 3 times longer) and then BSODs into windows.

No problems whatsoever on the remaining slots, which are unfortunately slots 3 and 4 and run single channel.

Somehow not surprised though; gigabyte boards always seem to give me headaches everything else was out of stock.


----------



## HTC (Mar 7, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Well, what board do we have in this thread? What memory did cdawall use? Each board's BIOS, at this point, will be tuned for specific modules. So what works on one board won't work on another, most likely. QVL suggestions are good, but at the same time, I'd talk to people that have the exact same hardware you plan to buy.
> 
> 
> *I am currently using ASRock Taichi* and two modules form this kit : https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/GSkill/F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW/. I was able to simply enable XMP and have 3200 MHz work fully, but XFR is disabled (which is no problem since CPU OC and XFR should not be used together IMHO).



What are your impressions of this board? It's definitely the board i'll want to purchase but it's not currently available in my country


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 7, 2017)

HTC said:


> What are your impressions of this board? It's definitely the board i'll want to purchase but it's not currently available in my country


Its pretty good. Review soon.


----------



## HTC (Mar 7, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Its pretty good. Review soon.



Looking forward to it.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 8, 2017)

dave what does your 1700X thermals look like?  Im now thinking maybe its my loop?

The 1700 is ice cold tho.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 8, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Should be obvious. When power draw is below the defined TDP, boost is allowed. As you know, we can adjust these TDP limits in BIOS and in Intel's XTU tool, and we also use Turbo to OC.
> 
> AMD and Ryzen, as far as I understand, it is the same, but the max XFR speed is hard-coded into each CPU individually, meaning that different CPUs of the same SKU can actually have different max Turbo speeds. Need to spend more time playing in the BIOS to figure out how AMD is doing it exactly, to be honest. I assume it is adjustable also, given that I am pretty sure that AMD said they'd be offering per-core clock adjustments in the future (not sure how exactly).
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how that affects how we approach overclocking this platform.


right.. so they test at a base clock and get 95W. Then you can boost a couple of bins and still be under? How does that work when we know clock increases raise power use? I can see why it works with fewer cores, but not with all.



phanbuey said:


> dave what does your 1700X thermals look like?  Im now thinking maybe its my loop?
> 
> The 1700 is ice cold tho.


what is "chilly"? Where are you reading these "chilly" temps?


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Mar 8, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> So I ended up driving an hour to get a motherboard locally last night, and got my hands on the Aorus x370.  Hands down the crappiest board i've ever owned (although the led effects were cool)... system ran great at 39.25x100 @ 1.45v (Ryzen 1700) with LLC at high.... until the 1.5 of the board's ramslots went bad and the system would not post even after cmos reset and flip to secondary bios.
> 
> I can still boot in single channel on the other two slots but man... what the hell.  Turns out you can kill the actual slot on these by bumping dram termination voltage (last thing I did to try to get it stable at 12-13-13-13-36 @ 2400).  do not recommend.  Motherboard swaps are a pain in the butt.
> 
> ...


That's super interesting and well noted! I grabbed that board cause I like gigabyte and Asus gives me problems. I guess I'll really wait till they update their bios!


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 8, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> right.. so they test at a base clock and get 95W. Then you can boost a couple of bins and still be under? How does that work when we know clock increases raise power use? I can see why it works with fewer cores, but not with all.
> 
> what is "chilly"? Where are you reading these "chilly" temps?





EarthDog said:


> right.. so they test at a base clock and get 95W. Then you can boost a couple of bins and still be under? How does that work when we know clock increases raise power use? I can see why it works with fewer cores, but not with all.
> 
> what is "chilly"? Where are you reading these "chilly" temps?



ryzen master... once CPU (Ryzen 1700) idles at 27C and full load @ 3925Ghz 1.45V @ 64C-66C the other (1800X) idles at 54C STOCK... loads in the 80's also stock multiple reseatings/repastings.  Needless to say it's going back to Fry's tomorrow for a refund.




-1nf1n1ty- said:


> That's super interesting and well noted! I grabbed that board cause I like gigabyte and Asus gives me problems. I guess I'll really wait till they update their bios!


Just don't mess with the ram too much yet and you should be ok.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 8, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> hype? Not met. Intel killer? At multi-threaded workloads, yes. Too early to know? Not at all.
> 
> AMD had a botched launch, sending people hardware that wasn't truly compatible. Ryzen is a good platform, but in some workloads (ie gaming), Intel wins when comparing stock CPU speeds. OC'ed, Intel still gets more raw frequency, so wins.
> 
> So, Intel is not in trouble from Ryzen at all. but should AMD be able to push the clock speeds up... Intel could be beat in all workloads. AMD just needs these chips to clock to 5 GHz on "traditional" cooling methods like Kaby Lake does. Seeing how Kaby lake has 65W and 95W "OC" models, just like Ryzen, this might be possible in the future, but not right now.



 That's about what I expected.


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Mar 8, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> ryzen master... once CPU (Ryzen 1700) idles at 27C and full load @ 3925Ghz 1.45V @ 64C-66C the other (1800X) idles at 54C STOCK... loads in the 80's also stock multiple reseatings/repastings.  Needless to say it's going back to Fry's tomorrow for a refund.
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't mess with the ram too much yet and you should be ok.


I will mess with it when bios are released, all I really want is XMP. By the way, my cpu stays at around the same temps in idle and load (more like 75c) But I live in texas and my room is warm so it's hard to say what the cause is? Maybe its a bios issue and since NOTHING is optimized for it, it goes a bit crazy? Dunno


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 8, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> right.. so they test at a base clock and get 95W. Then you can boost a couple of bins and still be under? How does that work when we know clock increases raise power use? I can see why it works with fewer cores, but not with all.


consider AVX2 load vs other loads... clock doesn't increase power use under lower load conditions, and so clock speed can be increased.



phanbuey said:


> dave what does your 1700X thermals look like?  Im now thinking maybe its my loop?
> 
> The 1700 is ice cold tho.



My 1700X is like your 1700. Did you clear CMOS when changing CPUs?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 8, 2017)

They don't change loads they test on though... would they? A load is a load is a load at a given clockspeed. If they test with AVX and hit 95W, then if they boost two bins on all cores its obviously more than 95W. Same with non AVX.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 8, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> A load is a load is a load at a given clockspeed.


No, it isn't.

My 7700K for example, wPrime says 100% load, power draw is 74W, but AVX2 says 100% load, and power draw is 103W. That's more than a 25% difference, both 100% load.

AMD:

So they take different chips. one draw 74W, but the other draws 65W only in same load. 65W CPU gets higher XFR.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 8, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> consider AVX2 load vs other loads... clock doesn't increase power use under lower load conditions, and so clock speed can be increased.
> 
> 
> 
> My 1700X is like your 1700. Did you clear CMOS when changing CPUs?



yeah the main reason i got it was to check to see if the DIMMS on the mobo really died or i somehow fried the IMC of the 1700.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 8, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> My 7700K for example, wPrime says 100% load, power draw is 74W, but AVX2 says 100% load, and power draw is 103W. That's more than a 25% difference, both 100% load.
> 
> ...


I wasn't clear... If Intel tests with (whatever) load, and then raises clockspeeds and tests the same (whatever) load, it uses more power. Period. What am I missing?


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 8, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I wasn't clear... If Intel tests with (whatever) load, and then raises clockspeeds and tests the same (whatever) load, it uses more power. Period. What am I missing?


Their binning process probably tells then that A chip @ B load = C max stable clock. They then turn things DOWN for retail, knowing how such a chip behaves at lower clocks. Pretty easy.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 8, 2017)

Probably...?

 Gotcha.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 8, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> My 7700K for example, wPrime says 100% load, power draw is 74W, but AVX2 says 100% load, and power draw is 103W. That's more than a 25% difference, both 100% load.
> 
> ...



It's why AVX/AVX2 is a prefered realworld stability testing "tool". I always use ASUS RealBench H.264 or Heavy Multithreaded test to evaluate stability. If system survives 10 loops of either without any errors or BSOD's, it's 99% chance it'll be stable with anything you throw at it. If it's partially stable, you'll get encoding errors and if it's not stable, it'll just lockup. Besides, AVX isn't some synthetic nonsense, you actually encounter this with video encoding which is pretty common task these days for anyone involved with Youtube.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 8, 2017)

Weird result or possible future gaming performance when things work well?

http://www.eteknix.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-am4-8-core-processor-review/

This is the test system:



> Motherboard – MSI X370 XPOWER Gaming Titanium
> RAM – 16GB Crucial Ballistix Sport XT (2 x 8GB) DDR4 2666MHz
> CPU Cooler – Thermaltake Water 3.0 with Gelid GC-Extreme
> Graphics Card – Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 980Ti
> ...


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 8, 2017)

Wow, that's quite big jump for only extra 100MHz on CPU. And even that OVER highly overclocked 7700k. Sure it's just one game, but still...


----------



## HTC (Mar 8, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Weird result or possible future gaming performance when things work well?
> 
> http://www.eteknix.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-am4-8-core-processor-review/
> 
> This is the test system:



Interesting how an overclocked 6950X @ 4.3GHz get's 1.2 FPS boost over stock but Ryzen gets 9.6 FPS boost when overclocked to 4.1GHz compared to stock.

Even 7700 only gets 2.4 FPS over stock when overclocked @ 5.1 GHz.

The only Intel chip that gets any meaningfull increase over stock is the 4770 that jumps 8.5 FPS over stock when overclocked to 4.8GHz.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 8, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Wow, that's quite big jump for only extra 100MHz on CPU. And even that OVER highly overclocked 7700k. Sure it's just one game, but still...



If a repeatable result - it clearly shows Ryzen has the ability to work well - it just needs to get it happening more often than not.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 8, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Probably...?
> 
> Gotcha.


The 4790K is the only CPU that Intel has said how they binned for, and they binned those chips for minimum 4.6 GHz. But what they did to bin, they said, was analyze the wafers, and once they knew where those type of chips would be in the wafer, they simply used those chips, so OC would be varied. Those wafers all came off the same fab line. So here we have a chip tested at higher clocks than what it was sold for. Then testing those chips for power consumption, that is where that 91W figure they were quoted for was reached. Binning at a higher clock than what they sell for also is what gives us the large overhead. There is also the idea to consider that they don't bin silicon individually, they bin the wafer for a chip, those that fail get held for other bins. So those "4.6 GHz bins" in the 4770K were just out there in the mix, rather than pulled out specifically.

For retail chips, a similar binning process is probably used, but yes, only probably, since Intel nor AMD truly disclose how they bin their silicon. I am unaware of any chip maker of any kind disclosing how they bin their chips.

But, then AMD has said for Ryzen, the are binned for XFR. wht that means... I dunno. Does that relate to what SKU they are, or if that's for each chip no matter what SKU there were not clear about. Finding out might help us bin chips for benching though.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 8, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Wow, that's quite big jump for only extra 100MHz on CPU. And even that OVER highly overclocked 7700k. Sure it's just one game, but still...



3.6ghz to 4.1ghz isn't 100mhz


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 8, 2017)

So back in ,Windows 10 has scheduling issues with RyZen , over stating an smt core as a full core whereas Intel's are noted by software as a light core.
Hey presto then , when GPU limited RyZen ain't bad , in some CPU limited situations (1080p) we have a possible culprit but likely at least part of the issue , I'd love to see some 1080p runs with smt off though it would indicate the validity of this theory/drama stoker.

Shiz wrong thread doh ,left though as is


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 8, 2017)

cdawall said:


> 3.6ghz to 4.1ghz isn't 100mhz



Between 1800X stock and overclocked 1800X. See the chart, there are both listed. Stock is at 4GHz, OC is at 4.1GHz.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 8, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Between 1800X stock and overclocked 1800X. See the chart, there are both listed. Stock is at 4GHz, OC is at 4.1GHz.


yeah but the stock doesn't maintain 4Ghz - its 'somewhere between 3.6ghz and 4.0ghz' whereas the 4.1Ghz is 4.1Ghz always


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 8, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> yeah but the stock doesn't maintain 4Ghz - its 'somewhere between 3.6ghz and 4.0ghz' whereas the 4.1Ghz is 4.1Ghz always



Is there any info to back that up? Why wouldn't it maintain turbo clock? That's a guaranteed boost unless there are serious thermal issues in which case it wouldn't clock up to that. XFR is what's entirely up to headroom. But XFR is beyond 4GHz afaik.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 8, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Is there any info to back that up? Why wouldn't it maintain turbo clock? That's a guaranteed boost unless there are serious thermal issues in which case it wouldn't clock up to that. XFR is what's entirely up to headroom. But XFR is beyond 4GHz afaik.


http://www.overclockers.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/
scroll down to the clock speed... those 4.0/4.1 are only for 4 threads - I'm betting the scheduler bug has something to do with it too.

I can throw my 1800X in and take a look, but even the reviews where they OC it to 3.8-3.9 Ghz constant it still beats the pants off stock in multithreaded benchies.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 8, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Weird result or possible future gaming performance when things work well?
> 
> http://www.eteknix.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-am4-8-core-processor-review/
> 
> This is the test system:


Looks fishy to me, I'd rather take a look at PCGH.de data, that website is trustworthy.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 8, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> http://www.overclockers.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/
> scroll down to the clock speed... those 4.0/4.1 are only for 4 threads - I'm betting the scheduler bug has something to do with it too.
> 
> I can throw my 1800X in and take a look, but even the reviews where they OC it to 3.8-3.9 Ghz constant it still beats the pants off stock in multithreaded benchies.



It should boost all cores. Only reason to only boost 4 cores means there are issues with Windows scheduling workloads.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 8, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Between 1800X stock and overclocked 1800X. See the chart, there are both listed. Stock is at 4GHz, OC is at 4.1GHz.



It will not boost all 8 cores to 4ghz. Want to know how I know that? I unlike you, actually have one and unlike you who seems to find joy in arguing things you have literally zero idea about have actually dealt with this CPU. So unlike you, I with my personal experience am telling you as a statement of fact that the chip is overclocked from 3.6 to 4.1 and it is not a 100mhz increase hence why the performance change is so dramatic.

Any other questions?


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 8, 2017)

I'd also be a smartass if I'd get every new hardware for free to test... And if you'd actually read instead of bragging how you're ruler of the world coz you happen to have Ryzen in front of you, I wasn't arguing, I simply asked the guy, because boosting only half the cores just makes ZERO sense. I don't need a CPU in front of me to know that doesn't sound right. Either you boost all until you reach thermal limits and if there is single thread, you boost even further while leaving other cores at base clock. It's how Intel does and it's what makes sense and is logical.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 8, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> I'd also be a smartass if I'd get every new hardware for free to test... And if you'd actually read instead of bragging how you're ruler of the world coz you happen to have Ryzen in front of you, I wasn't arguing, I simply asked the guy, because boosting only half the cores just makes ZERO sense. I don't need a CPU in front of me to know that doesn't sound right. Either you boost all until you reach thermal limits and if there is single thread, you boost even further while leaving other cores at base clock. It's how Intel does and it's what makes sense and is logical.



That is the exact way AMD and Intel boost has worked for years to exclude a handful of SKU's. Boost has existed for 10 years now and they way it works hasn't changed.


----------



## thesmokingman (Mar 8, 2017)

^^Yep. Stock boost does not run all cores at max frequency. It never has. It's surprising how many ppl don't realize the specifics.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 8, 2017)

Intel now has a max boost for 1 core that is very high, generally speaking, and a all core boost that isn't so high, maybe +200--300mhz (talking about the 6800/6900k models with turbo 3.0). AMD had a 3 core turbo  (3 of 6) when they first introduced turbo in Phenom II X6. Later it was more like Intels 2.0 turbo, only boostIng 1-2 cores, FX 8350 from 4 ghz to 4.2 ghz for example. My own 3960X simply boosted to 3.9 ghz all the time without me touching it, so it's a odd one, maybe because it's a X cpu I don't know, but I think that is it. So expect 6950X to run relatively high as well also explains it's high score among all games despite the low base clock and despite most games not really utilising more than 4 cores.


----------



## r9 (Mar 9, 2017)

Can someone do side by side gaming benchmark with SMT and one Ccx disabled. So we can see what ryzen quad core w/o SMT can do. With all the windows scheduler speculation going around. Benching with four cores and no SMT should give better results in gaming.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 9, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Intel now has a max boost for 1 core that is very high, generally speaking, and a all core boost that isn't so high, maybe +200--300mhz (talking about the 6800/6900k models with turbo 3.0). AMD had a 3 core turbo  (3 of 6) when they first introduced turbo in Phenom II X6. Later it was more like Intels 2.0 turbo, only boostIng 1-2 cores, FX 8350 from 4 ghz to 4.2 ghz for example. My own 3960X simply boosted to 3.9 ghz all the time without me touching it, so it's a odd one, maybe because it's a X cpu I don't know, but I think that is it. So expect 6950X to run relatively high as well also explains it's high score among all games despite the low base clock and despite most games not really utilising more than 4 cores.


It was the motherboard. Many do this on the Intel side. The 3960X boosted all 6 cores 3 bins (300MHz), then up to 4 cores 5 bins, then up to 2 cores, 6 bins. Should be in the Intel Turbo Boost tables. 

The 6950x boosts to 3.5 GHz...

"Turbo Boost 2.0 is what Intel calls its maximum Turbo or ‘peak’ frequency. So in the case of the i7-6950X, the base frequency is 3.0 GHz and the Turbo Boost 2.0 frequency is 3.5 GHz. The CPU will use that frequency when light workloads are in play and decrease the frequency of the cores as the load increases in order to keep the power consumption more consistent."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337...6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/2

When I 'load defaults' on my board. I sit at 3.5Ghz all cores.


----------



## OneCool (Mar 9, 2017)

Do we have any results on crossfire/SLI scaling? Kinda curious about that.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> It was the motherboard. Many do this on the Intel side. The 3960X boosted all 6 cores 3 bins (300MHz), then up to 4 cores 5 bins, then up to 2 cores, 6 bins. Should be in the Intel Turbo Boost tables.
> 
> The 6950x boosts to 3.5 GHz...
> 
> ...



If you have TBMT3.0 installed the 6950X, 6900K and 6850K all turbo to 4.0


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 9, 2017)

cdawall said:


> If you have TBMT3.0 installed the 6950X, 6900K and 6850K all turbo to 4.0


absolutely right. I deleted that part on an edit before posting. 

It's also one core only.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 9, 2017)

Memory bandwith makes such a huge difference on this platform.... wondering if it's just because the cache is so much slower than on the intels that it is acting like a bottleneck... and the less you can keep the bottleneck waiting the faster the system responds.

Going to be putting some 3200Mhz c15 gskills in this weekend.

I am really curious why AMD didn't send 3200Mhz memory with their test kits.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 9, 2017)

Because it seems there is only a couple of boards out currently that support such speeds... at release time, it seemed only the CH6 supported those speeds.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 9, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Intel now has a max boost for 1 core that is very high, generally speaking, and a all core boost that isn't so high, maybe +200--300mhz (talking about the 6800/6900k models with turbo 3.0). AMD had a 3 core turbo  (3 of 6) when they first introduced turbo in Phenom II X6. Later it was more like Intels 2.0 turbo, only boostIng 1-2 cores, FX 8350 from 4 ghz to 4.2 ghz for example. My own 3960X simply boosted to 3.9 ghz all the time without me touching it, so it's a odd one, maybe because it's a X cpu I don't know, but I think that is it. So expect 6950X to run relatively high as well also explains it's high score among all games despite the low base clock and despite most games not really utilising more than 4 cores.


Yeah but you can run upto 6 cores boosted with tweaks I run flat clocks but do use overdrive sometimes to boost my CPU clocks for benching, not for max clocks , just when I want to check something isn't wrong for example.
I think it and AMDs aborted fusion melarky where going to , well technically you can ,set a software overclock per application ,very much a precursor for what we see today because imho they and Intel have been struggling to maintain the right amount of performance across various loads without generating loads of heat ,easily seen in both camps varying power draw and heat output on varying work loads.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 9, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Weird result or possible future gaming performance when things work well?
> 
> http://www.eteknix.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-am4-8-core-processor-review/
> 
> This is the test system:


Ryzen of the tomb raider via eteknix parallel universe. The 980Ti on very high preset would not be even close to those framerates. Something is either done wrong or purposely misleading.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Because it seems there is only a couple of boards out currently that support such speeds... at release time, it seemed only the CH6 supported those speeds.



If they just stuck to that board and the fast ram, they would have had substantially better gaming numbers...

Between the faster ram, and the incoming SMT patch, the chip will game great.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 9, 2017)

Has faster ram (say 2400-3000) shown to significantly improve FPS on Ryzen? It doesn't in most titles on Intel...


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Has faster ram (say 2400-3000) shown to significantly improve FPS on Ryzen? It doesn't in most titles on Intel...



Huge gains...
http://www.eteknix.com/memory-speed-large-impact-ryzen-performance/
http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...latform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259

I can see it on the 1800X from 2133 to 2400 ... but will post some screenies when the 3200mhz kit comes in.

I think its because the cache is too slow to keep the proc fed otherwise.  Intel's current caching is so efficient that the ram speed is trivial.

This reminds me of back in the day when memory speed mattered lol.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 9, 2017)

So one game at 1080p MEDIUM settings with a 1080 in the second link and TW3 in the first link which was one of the titles increasing Intel memory responds to as well. Gotcha. 

EDIT: And that only seems to hold for 1080p. Anything higher and its nominal.


> The bad news is that by the time you read 2560 x 1440 (1440P), the system is more GPU botttlenecked, so memory clock speed didn’t impact performance at all. The same thing proved true for 4K gaming performance, so if you aren’t GPU limited
> Read more at http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...t-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259/4#yJXr8PtI3tKKVB69.99


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> So one game at 1080p MEDIUM settings with a 1080 in the second link and TW3 which was one of the titles increasing Intel memory responds to as well. Gotcha.



Better than nothing.  Also you want the lowest graphical settings since its for CPU speed.

Trying to find more but doesn't seem to be a whole lot out there... might have to do some very unscientific homebrew benchmarking this weekend.



EarthDog said:


> So one game at 1080p MEDIUM settings with a 1080 in the second link and TW3 in the first link which was one of the titles increasing Intel memory responds to as well. Gotcha.
> 
> EDIT: And that only seems to hold for 1080p. Anything higher and its nominal.



That's just because the bottleneck shifts, so there is no longer any point in trying to measure something that isn't a bottleneck anymore.  Bottom line is ryzen is getting dinged for 1080P gaming at high FPS - and memory scaling seems to bump that up substantially from the very limited sample set that's out there.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 9, 2017)

That doesn't sound right... to test showing a situation, and exaggerating an issue, I don't use with a 1080. Sounds logical. If I have a 1080, I'm running everything full out at 1080p. THis puts more load on the GPU and would theoretically show less increase from ram speeds. Also, if you have a midrange GPU like a 1060 or 480... does it still show the same increases?


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> That doesn't sound right... to test showing a situation, and exaggerating an issue, I don't use with a 1080. Sounds logical. If I have a 1080, I'm running everything full out at 1080p. THis puts more load on the GPU and would theoretically show less increase from ram speeds. Also, if you have a midrange GPU like a 1060 or 480... does it still show the same increases?



Well no... but the point of the bench is not to show a balanced gaming rig, but to highlight the CPU bottlenecking as it is analogous to other games/similar workloads.  It's not going to bottleneck a 1060  @ 1080P so the impact is not going to be as pronounced.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 9, 2017)

You proved my point. Its a 'highlight' BECAUSE its an unrealistic situation (1080, medium settings 1080p)... Put it back in the realm of normal (1080 ultra settings with AA...etc), it can be less pronounced and can even go away with lesser cards. So why report that way? Why not show how people actually play or use that card?


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 9, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> Memory bandwith makes such a huge difference on this platform.... wondering if it's just because the cache is so much slower than on the intels that it is acting like a bottleneck... and the less you can keep the bottleneck waiting the faster the system responds.
> 
> Going to be putting some 3200Mhz c15 gskills in this weekend.
> 
> I am really curious why AMD didn't send 3200Mhz memory with their test kits.



Apparently Zen has some trouble with the way Windows handles thread scheduling and has some latency issues accessing the cache as a result.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> You proved my point. Its a 'highlight' BECAUSE its an unrealistic situation (1080, medium settings 1080p)... Put it back in the realm of normal (1080 ultra settings with AA...etc), it can be less pronounced and can even go away with lesser cards. So why report that way? Why not show how people actually play or use that card?


 Because you're trying to compare processor performance...

I am not understanding your point.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 9, 2017)

I'm not comparing processor performance.

 What I'm trying to say is, IMO, the testing there of a 1080 using medium settings isn't a realistic test environment and exaggerates any differences that are found with more appropriate settings or resolutions. I'd be more interested in the results at ultra and 1080p with a 1080 since, that is presumably where people will set things... or that same 1080 at 2560x1440 and ultra as it can easily handle most titles there too.

As it stands, the type of testing done magnifies any differences found in more realistic settings.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 9, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Apparently Zen has some trouble with the way Windows handles thread scheduling and has some latency issues accessing the cache as a result.


I mentioned it ,was largely ignored. 
Patch please.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 10, 2017)

cdawall said:


> If you have TBMT3.0 installed the 6950X, 6900K and 6850K all turbo to 4.0


That's exactly what I meant.

Btw, here's a video from a software dev talking about Ryzen architecture in-depth, and what problems it has and how it's solvable:








Worth the time.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 10, 2017)

not sure if this is true... but:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xjmau/ryzens_data_fabric_is_locked_12_ram_speed_faster/

i think someone posted this already but worth doing again.


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Mar 10, 2017)

I have a question for anyone willing to answer. I have the Gigabyte board AX370 and I love it but my CPU cooler (hyper 212) can only be mounted where the fan is facing the top.....is that right?


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 10, 2017)

-1nf1n1ty- said:


> I have a question for anyone willing to answer. I have the Gigabyte board AX370 and I love it but my CPU cooler (hyper 212) can only be mounted where the fan is facing the top.....is that right?


EDITED... looks like it can go either way....

my waterblocks for intel usually go bot to top (flow wise, water in bottom exit top) but now its left to right... weirds me out a bit.


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Mar 10, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> EDITED... looks like it can go either way....
> 
> my waterblocks for intel usually go bot to top (flow wise, water in bottom exit top) but now its left to right... weirds me out a bit.


Thanks for the tip, so I guess I am able to have the cooler side ways? I just didn't see a way unless I missed it. Either way I'll try it again once Cryorig sends me the AM4 kit (bought it not too long ago I just have to wait now)


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 10, 2017)

FM2 but same principle... there are am4 mounts out there too. you can go either way


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Mar 10, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> FM2 but same principle... there are am4 mounts out there too. you can go either way


So I guess I can turn it, but I guess I would have to use that "X" mounting bracket if I want it on it's side?


----------



## Dethroy (Mar 10, 2017)

Just to get things straight...

R7 1800X all-core boost: 3.6GHz
R7 1700X all-core boost: 3.5GHz
R7 1700   all-core boost: 3.2GHz

right?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 10, 2017)

1800x has xfr... for all cores, that's up to 3.7. For 2c/4t up to 4.1.


----------



## Dethroy (Mar 10, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> 1800x has xfr... for all cores, that's up to 3.7. For 2c/4t up to 4.1.


Got you. I dug a little deeper and seem to understand it now...

base clock =  MACF (maximum all-core frequency)
boost clock = MSCF (maximum single-core frequency)
XFR extends those clocks → ACXFRC (all-core extended frequency range ceiling) & SCXFRC (single-core extended frequency range ceiling)

R7 1800X: MACF=3.6GHz | ACXFR=3.7GHz & MSCF=4.0GHz | SCXFRC=4.1GHz
R7 1700X: MACF=3.4GHz | ACXFR=3.5GHz & MSCF=3.8GHz | SCXFRC=3.9GHz
R7 1700:   MACF=3.0GHz? | ACXFR=3.05GHz? & MSCF=3.7GHz | SCXFRC=3.75GHz  (but it seems like the R7 1700 is running at 3.2GHz MACF)


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 10, 2017)

Getting there. 

Outside of the 3.7 xfr, the remaining boost is all 2c/4t.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 10, 2017)

-1nf1n1ty- said:


> I have a question for anyone willing to answer. I have the Gigabyte board AX370 and I love it but my CPU cooler (hyper 212) can only be mounted where the fan is facing the top.....is that right?



The current AM4 bracket will only allow you to do up and down with the fan the x bracket is not used with AM4.


----------



## Jhelms (Mar 10, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> Huge gains...
> http://www.eteknix.com/memory-speed-large-impact-ryzen-performance/
> http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...latform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259
> 
> ...




Memory tuning feels like a lost art these days. However I have always spent the time to dial / tweak mem to perfection / hunt for the lowest latency chips - modules.  Some may think it crazy, I think it makes a decent difference in system feel.  I am loving how ryzen responds to better mem - tuning.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 10, 2017)

Garage1217 said:


> Memory tuning feels like a lost art these days. However I have always spent the time to dial / tweak mem to perfection / hunt for the lowest latency chips - modules.  Some may think it crazy, I think it makes a decent difference in system feel.  I am loving how ryzen responds to better mem - tuning.


It's back since Skylake anyway. Skylake gets a lot by going from 2400 to 3200 and even higher, it has endless scaling, but the sweetspot is about 3200-3600mhz. Even Haswell/Ivy/Sandy scale very well with higher ram speeds now, it's simply needed in newer apps/games.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 10, 2017)

The sweetspot is still 3000-3200 as far as price to performance. From what I've read, outside of a few titles, you really don't gain much over that (and even that is in select titles). The price on 3600+ KITS really doesn't give great returns.


----------



## r9 (Mar 10, 2017)

Kanan said:


> That's exactly what I meant.
> 
> Btw, here's a video from a software dev talking about Ryzen architecture in-depth, and what problems it has and how it's solvable:
> 
> ...


Like the guy on the Video said Ryzen quad cores should not be affected having only one CCX and one L3.
Can someone disable 4 cores and SMT to put the theory to the test ?


----------



## mroofie (Mar 10, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> Memory bandwith makes such a huge difference on this platform.... wondering if it's just because the cache is so much slower than on the intels that it is acting like a bottleneck... and the less you can keep the bottleneck waiting the faster the system responds.
> 
> Going to be putting some 3200Mhz c15 gskills in this weekend.
> 
> I am really curious why AMD didn't send 3200Mhz memory with their test kits.


Wouldn't lower latency ram work better? 
Unless you meant cache bandwith?


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 10, 2017)

mroofie said:


> Wouldn't lower latency ram work better?
> Unless you meant cache bandwith?



Latency is a product of speed and timings... so I kind of meant both - basically my guess is that faster memory has more of a direct impact (than say Intel chips) on the Ryzen's ability to process certain workloads (games) due to the relative inability of the cache to do its job (which is to compensate for slower operation of RAM and keep the processor fed) effectively.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 11, 2017)

So, if Ryzen had quad channel RAM, we'd see massive gains in general?


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 11, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> So, if Ryzen had quad channel RAM, we'd see massive gains in general?


Not necessarily, because some of the "problems" are related to cache. We need this "updated scheduler" before that can be answered properly.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 11, 2017)

Though the L1 cache bandwidth numbers are insane. I don't think I get 1TB/s on L1, like ever.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 11, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> So, if Ryzen had quad channel RAM, we'd see massive gains in general?


In part yes, but Dave is right, there are other limitations going on that aren't solvable through more Ram bandwidth.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 12, 2017)

Hey favor to ask those of you that live near a Microcenter, can I get some pictures of the rigs they have built. I am trying to size up my competition.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 15, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> So, if Ryzen had quad channel RAM, we'd see massive gains in general?


Doubtful...I'm sure there would be some increases...but, the isn't the main issue.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 15, 2017)

as dave said before the main issue is clock speeds... if they actually hit the 4.2-4.3 ghz and had slightly faster cache, it would address the gaming performance.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 15, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> as dave said before the main issue is clock speeds... if they actually hit the 4.2-4.3 ghz and had slightly faster cache, it would address the gaming performance.


Have you managed to get some decent ram speeds now?


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 15, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> Have you managed to get some decent ram speeds now?



Yeah single rank 3200Mhz works really well:






Trident Z kit from newegg shellshock deal...




Although the fact that the bus runs at 99.76 Mhz vs 100 makes the OCD inside of me nuts.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 15, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> Yeah single rank 3200Mhz works really well:
> 
> View attachment 85171
> 
> ...



Does the RAM run native at 3200 or do you have to use the BIOS presets to get the right frequency? I'm looking to buy the ROG Crosshair as well when it;s back in stock.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 15, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Does the RAM run native at 3200 or do you have to use the BIOS presets to get the right frequency? I'm looking to buy the ROG Crosshair as well when it;s back in stock.


I have the prime x370, and it's one of the BIOS options  goes from 2133 and caps out at 3200... i havent tried the native XMP (DOCP) support (its another one of the options), but it was really basic to get it going.

I think they are working on unlocking 3600 + options


----------



## infrared (Mar 20, 2017)

Beware anyone flashing to the 0902 bios (Crosshair VI).. I was fidding around between offset and fixed voltages, aiming for 1.15-1.20v SOC.... got into windows, opened hwmon and it's at >1.5V!!! restarted and it checked it was set at 1.15 in bios, rebooted and still >1.5v! I set all the defaults and re-set everything to what I wanted and it's working now. Definitely a bit alarming though, check your volts everyone! It seems to be behaving now, fingers crossed.

I'm having some luck with my 1800x/CH6. It seems to like 4.0ghz 1.425v LLC4.. ~1.45V for 4.05ghz and 1.48V for 4.1ghz. Anything less and it crashes under heavy load, just displaying the 8 code. I've been looking for other settings that might let me reduce the core voltage but so far no joy. I have all VRM's set to extreme and 500khz, LLC is set at 4 for core and SOC. The 1.8V PLL is set at 2.0v. Has anyone else had a Eureka moment and found a setting these things particularly like?

I'm having crap luck with the memory, I can't really go much higher than 2666mhz atm, I was messing with the Base clock but every time I tried for a higher ram freq it crapped out on me. I just ordered some of the G.skill TridentZ 4266mhz 16gb kit, will be interesting to see how it goes with them.

It's a cool platform though, crunches like an absolute demon and very efficient at stock speeds. In hind sight the 1700 would have been a much wiser purchase.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 20, 2017)

infrared said:


> Beware anyone flashing to the 0902 bios (Crosshair VI).. I was fidding around between offset and fixed voltages, aiming for 1.15-1.20v SOC.... got into windows, opened hwmon and it's at >1.5V!!! restarted and it checked it was set at 1.15 in bios, rebooted and still >1.5v! I set all the defaults and re-set everything to what I wanted and it's working now. Definitely a bit alarming though, check your volts everyone! It seems to be behaving now, fingers crossed.
> 
> I'm having some luck with my 1800x/CH6. It seems to like 4.0ghz 1.425v LLC4.. ~1.45V for 4.05ghz and 1.48V for 4.1ghz. Anything less and it crashes under heavy load, just displaying the 8 code. I've been looking for other settings that might let me reduce the core voltage but so far no joy. I have all VRM's set to extreme and 500khz, LLC is set at 4 for core and SOC. The 1.8V PLL is set at 2.0v. Has anyone else had a Eureka moment and found a setting these things particularly like?
> 
> ...



Max memory support is 3200 so it will be a crap shoot on the Crosshair VI.


----------



## infrared (Mar 20, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Max memory support is 3200 so it will be a crap shoot on the Crosshair VI.


Yeah but you can bump it up a lot with the base clock.  Supposedly it doesn't like running between 3200-3600, so hopefully I can get above that. And I believe newer bioses are meant to support memory dividers for more than 3200 with the 100mhz base clock. All I know is it seems to hate this HyperX 3333mhz stick! 

edit: if it doesn't like fast ram then I can always dial in some nice tight timings.


----------



## v12dock (Mar 20, 2017)

Not much of an overclocker


----------



## Kanan (Mar 21, 2017)

v12dock said:


> Not much of an overclocker


Bad luck happens, but you have to expect that from the first batch of new AMD CPUs - it's like that since Phenom. My Phenom II didn't overclock much either, barely did a 3.7 GHz (from 3 GHz) with +0.1V which is more than I wanted to do. FX 8150 wasn't really great either when first released.


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 22, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Bad luck happens, but you have to expect that from the first batch of new AMD CPUs - it's like that since Phenom. My Phenom II didn't overclock much either, barely did a 3.7 GHz (from 3 GHz) with +0.1V which is more than I wanted to do. FX 8150 wasn't really great either when first released.



 I got my 8150 to 5ghz on cold days and it 4.6ghz the rest of the time. 

That's decent overclocks  

Shame the cpu was a waste of my time and money but it was fun to fiddle with.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 23, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> I got my 8150 to 5ghz on cold days and it 4.6ghz the rest of the time.
> 
> That's decent overclocks
> 
> Shame the cpu was a waste of my time and money but it was fun to fiddle with.


Decent overclocks maybe, but it didn't scale very much performance wise, that's why you can't really compare FX to full performance cores like Phenom II/Ryzen. FX was built for high clocks, it was totally bad without it - essentially the Pentium 4 of AMD (talking FX 8350 here, the FX 8150 wasn't really good anyway).


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 23, 2017)

This seems like a good chip so far 

Ram won't do anything but 2128mhz even using ryzen master. CPU does 3.9Ghz @ 1.325v with ryzen master, i haven't pushed any further since i've only had it for a few hours!






4Ghz @ 1.375, not stable crashed in Cinebench 15....


----------



## infrared (Mar 23, 2017)

I got a chance to play with the TridentZ 4266mhz kit today, seems like there's potential there but it's finicky. 3666mhz at 125mhz bclk works but isn't totally steady, since the WCG challenge is going on I'll spend more time trying to get that stable soon.

It boots at the max 3200 no problem, I haven't finalized the voltages or timings yet but 3200 14-14-14-30 1.4v works nice.

EDIT: I used the 2400mhz strap and 145mhz bclk for 3480mhz 14-14-14-32-1T, the performance step-up from the above 3200mhz setup is impressive!


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 23, 2017)

You 3200 MHz is a bit... low. This is with no CPU OC, mem only.







Nice BCLK OC though, that's way higher than I have gotten! 136 MHz is max for me.


----------



## infrared (Mar 24, 2017)

Hmm, nice numbers! I think my lower 3200mhz result it's because it was running 2T. The newer bios (0902) for the CH6 uses now runs the memory in 2T if 2666 or higher is selected, 1T is only 2400 or less now. Hopefully they'll make it a selectable option, along with higher memory dividers.

I'm surprised the Taichi can't go as high on bclk, or do you think that's just pot luck with the cpu?


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 24, 2017)

infrared said:


> I'm surprised the Taichi can't go as high on bclk, or do you think that's just pot luck with the cpu?


I'm not sure, to be honest. If I had another chip I could maybe figure it out, but I don't so I am unsure. It does have clockgen, but maybe not a good enough one...? Not sure.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 24, 2017)

Can I ask, for coolers will AM3 work on AM4 boards?


----------



## FlanK3r (Mar 24, 2017)

only at Crosshair VI Hero (two section with holes for brackets)
Or you can use AM3 cooler, if is type of cooler with clips (not with AM3 bracket) as example SIlentium Fera


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 24, 2017)

Thanks, was thinking 240mm AIO.... so no?


----------



## FlanK3r (Mar 24, 2017)

No, because AIO have brackets and AM3 brackets cant pass to the AM4 holes (one exceptiuon is Crosshair VI Hero)


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 24, 2017)

In that case my decision is made, thank you.


----------



## v12dock (Mar 24, 2017)

Anyone else getting temp readings that seem off? This is prime95 after 8 hours on a custom loop


----------



## infrared (Mar 24, 2017)

v12dock said:


> Anyone else getting temp readings that seem off? This is prime95 after 8 hours on a custom loop


Is that after a bios update? Just thinking aloud.. I wonder if the +20c offset has been removed in a new bios and it's now showing a more accurate temperature. What does it drop down to when you stop aida?


----------



## v12dock (Mar 24, 2017)

infrared said:


> Is that after a bios update? Just thinking aloud.. I wonder if the +20c offset has been removed in a new bios and it's now showing a more accurate temperature. What does it drop down to when you stop aida?


 
My thoughts I only get low reading while overclocked and I did upgrade to the latest crosshair VI bios.


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 24, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Decent overclocks maybe, but it didn't scale very much performance wise, that's why you can't really compare FX to full performance cores like Phenom II/Ryzen. FX was built for high clocks, it was totally bad without it - essentially the Pentium 4 of AMD (talking FX 8350 here, the FX 8150 wasn't really good anyway).



Oh for sure no question about it the cpu was piss poor.

But at 5ghz even the ole 8150 could pull off a decent cinebench multi score ( at the time of launch anyway)

I actually went from a phenom x6 I think the 1050t to the 8150 and it was a downgrade in pretty much every way heh.
Wasn't all bad though a friend of mine got my 1050 setup and my 6850, quite the upgrade from his pentium d system! Although his shitty power supply eventually blew the mother board up.

Rebuilding that rig today with him actually. Be cool to compare performance.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 24, 2017)

Damn I have found a compatible AM4 AIO, so now I am stuck, might just have to pull the trigger on this little lot this weekend and just dive in at the deep end and shout for help lots!.............................................
Edit:  After some more research I think I will swap out the Asus Prime Plus to the MSI Tomahawk.


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 24, 2017)

Some stability testing... 3.85Ghz @ 1.35v


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 24, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> Damn I have found a compatible AM4 AIO, so now I am stuck, might just have to pull the trigger on this little lot this weekend and just dive in at the deep end and shout for help lots!.............................................
> Edit:  After some more research I think I will swap out the Asus Prime Plus to the MSI Tomahawk.
> 
> View attachment 85458



I've read a lot about a memory multiplier hole for 3000mhz ram, AMD are recommending 3200 mhz kits over 3000mhz mhz kits at the moment.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 24, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> Oh for sure no question about it the cpu was piss poor.
> 
> But at 5ghz even the ole 8150 could pull off a decent cinebench multi score ( at the time of launch anyway)
> 
> ...


We all know by now how irrelevant Cinebench scores are when it comes to gaming though (and many other applications as well), FX 8150 was a disaster in my books, it was only good in a few real world applications, mostly workstation stuffs, but still had terrible energy efficiency even when used on prime applications suited to it (or especially there because all 8 cores were put to use). 

Anyway this is offtopic, I don't want to deviate the thread. Keep up those Ryzen stuffs.


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 25, 2017)

3.9Ghz, 470 @ 1350/1749... I think i need another rx470


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 25, 2017)

whoever said microcode updates wouldnt do anything.... LOL

same OC settings (in my sig):




Prior top score: 1779

UPDATE... single core went from 158 to 165 @ 4GHZ


BIOS update from 0504 to 0511 ASUS PRIME X370


----------



## Kanan (Mar 25, 2017)

That youtube guy Jay was able to hit 4.1 GHz instead of just 3.9 GHz as well as bumping up memory speeds all the way from 2666 to 3200 on a 1800X @ Maximus Hero after the latest bios updates + microcode stuff, I'd call that decent. Maybe it will even mature more over the next weeks/months.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 25, 2017)

my games mins are up by 20 FPS... all butt dyno no benchies


Kanan said:


> That youtube guy Jay was able to hit 4.1 GHz instead of just 3.9 GHz as well as bumping up memory speeds all the way from 2666 to 3200 on a 1800X @ Maximus Hero after the latest bios updates + microcode stuff, I'd call that decent. Maybe it will even mature more over the next weeks/months.


the performance difference in games is no joke, even at the same settings -- they feel much much smoother, but im too lazy to do benchies.

low pre patch in fc4 @ 1440P all HIGH - prior low in  ~65ish...

low now 76 same mission just eyeball. - feels so much smoother averaging in the 100's much more consistently.


----------



## HTC (Mar 25, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> *my games mins are up by 20 FPS... all butt dyno no benchies*
> 
> the performance difference in games is no joke, even at the same settings -- they feel much much smoother, but im too lazy to do benchies.
> 
> ...



Dunno about microcode updates but RAM speeds *seem* to play a huge role when it comes to min FPS:


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 25, 2017)

HTC said:


> Dunno about microcode updates but RAM speeds *seem* to play a huge role when it comes to min FPS:


same ram speed... 3200mhz @ cl14 - massive bios boost


----------



## HTC (Mar 25, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> same ram speed... 3200mhz @ cl14 - massive bios boost



In one of the games he tested, there was a massive 20 FPS rise in minimum FPS, though the avg FPS was about the same. But this is with RAM @ 3600 CL16.

Please note that, consistently (in this video), with faster RAM the min FPS rises quite a bit. Dude tested 4 speeds: from 2133 to 3600.


----------



## HD64G (Mar 25, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Has faster ram (say 2400-3000) shown to significantly improve FPS on Ryzen? It doesn't in most titles on Intel...










Just saw that is has been posted before. Sorry for that.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 25, 2017)

Yeah, well, it's logical. And AMD had this going on even before with their APU's. Faster RAM always resulted in dramatic performace boost in games.

Which kinda makes sense. We know Ryzen's internal bus (Infinity Fabric) runs at RAM speeds. Meaning the faster RAM you use, the faster Infinity Fabric will be. Which means faster communication between CPU, RAM and also between CCX units.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 25, 2017)

HD64G said:


> Just saw that is has been posted before. Sorry for that.


so that's a no for all intents and purposes (outside of a couple titles). 

This vid is damn confusing.. keeps moving results all over the place....... 


I cant tell you how annoying it is that YT video are cutoff on my phone (I use full site)....



RejZoR said:


> Yeah, well, it's logical. And AMD had this going on even before with their APU's. Faster RAM always resulted in dramatic performace boost in games.
> 
> Which kinda makes sense. We know Ryzen's internal bus (Infinity Fabric) runs at RAM speeds. Meaning the faster RAM you use, the faster Infinity Fabric will be. Which means faster communication between CPU, RAM and also between CCX units.


In their APUs, I recall it helping when using their iGPU as it runs off memory speed... otherwise, I don't recall such differences.


----------



## xkm1948 (Mar 25, 2017)

In other words, RAM manufacturers will be  A LOT HAPPIER now RyZen platform is out. They can constantly push out those crazy DDR4-4000 and actually claim these RAM kits will be useful for gaming.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 25, 2017)

If they can make them officially supported and working, yes, most certainly. It's hard to justify crazy high speeds if there is basically no difference. It's why I've gone with 2400MHz on my X99. OC to 2666MHz is just because I can, not because there is necessity.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 25, 2017)

Been playing some more and haven't bothered to post screen shots. Bios 1002 makes me feel so much better about this platform











Found out the ram does CL14, cinebench scores didn't change with the tighter timings


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 25, 2017)

Cinebench GPU scores are low on this platform; I get just a few FPS less with a GTX980 (and with stock 1700X and 2400 MHz ram). Something is amiss there. CPU score scales well though.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 25, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Cinebench GPU scores are low on this platform; I get just a few FPS less with a GTX980 (and with stock 1700X and 2400 MHz ram). Something is amiss there. CPU score scales well though.



They don't seem to scale much with GPU clocks either. I get crashes with my normal clocks that are stable for games and benchmarks clocking the card up at all.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 26, 2017)

cdawall said:


> They don't seem to scale much with GPU clocks either. I get crashes with my normal clocks that are stable for games and benchmarks clocking the card up at all.


You know what does scale with all these cores? Tomb Raider.  It's pure coincidence that I added it to my test suite a few months ago, but I'm glad I did.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 26, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> You know what does scale with all these cores? Tomb Raider.  It's pure coincidence that I added it to my test suite a few months ago, but I'm glad I did.



well that is curious.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 26, 2017)

cdawall said:


> well that is curious.


When you see the Taichi review...

I guess maybe it's the TressFX or something.


----------



## HTC (Mar 26, 2017)

Judging by what i've seen thus far, i wonder what Ryzen gains *for games* (in percent) with CPU @ stock but high speed RAM (think 3600+) VS overclock CPU (4.0 GHz or 4.1 GHz) with ... say ... 2666 (2400??) MHz RAM.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 26, 2017)

I cannot put into words how much better 1002 is than any other BIOS I have played with on ryzen


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 26, 2017)

Look at dat memory!


----------



## cdawall (Mar 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Look at dat memory!



I think I can get the timings lower I have removed my care and concern for not killing the CPU/RAM/MOBO


----------



## terroralpha (Mar 26, 2017)

MSI still hasn't released a BIOS update. i can't run memory faster than 2400MHz. i'm so pissed off that i'm actually considering tearing down my entire loop and returning my motherboard.


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 26, 2017)

terroralpha said:


> MSI still hasn't released a BIOS update. i can't run memory faster than 2400MHz. i'm so pissed off that i'm actually considering tearing down my entire loop and returning my motherboard.


I feel your pain, my ASrock board won't run anything but 2130mhz.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 26, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I think I can get the timings lower I have removed my care and concern for not killing the CPU/RAM/MOBO



I have the crosshair on the 0702 BIOS.  How easy is it to update the BIOS with AMD?  On my intel platform I could do it while the computer was off, is it the same here?  Can it be done via windows?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 26, 2017)

Typically it's bios file on usb, find the option in the bios ton flash and viola!

I've flashed through windows beflre, but, for no real reason, prefer not to.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Typically it's bios file on usb, find the option in the bios ton flash and viola!
> 
> I've flashed through windows beflre, but, for no real reason, prefer not to.



Are you having a stroke?  I only ask because normally you type with precision but the past day I've noticed there is a slight lack of grammatical perfection to your posts.  Or are you using mobile?

And I' not being funny - it's sudden small changes in behaviour that can indicate health issues or more than likely, being on mobile (or drunk).

And yeah, I know about the USB flash but how reliable is it?


----------



## Super XP (Mar 26, 2017)

Faster Ram on Ryzen gives great Gaming Performance numbers. Infinity Fabric is the key to hidden performance in Ryzen IMO.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> I have the crosshair on the 0702 BIOS.  How easy is it to update the BIOS with AMD?  On my intel platform I could do it while the computer was off, is it the same here?  Can it be done via windows?



I use ezflash in the bios


----------



## Aenra (Mar 26, 2017)

@cdawall those RAM speeds are nice, well done!

Can you post here or PM me your full voltage/clock settings? Everything BIOS related. I know what i'm asking for, so no offense taken if you can't be bothered, but i'd really appreciate it.

(took me weeks of reading to stabilize this one and end of the day? Most helpful thing ever was successful OC settings from other people. They won't be _your _settings, but they do show you the way)


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 26, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I use ezflash in the bios



Asus UK website only has 0902 BIOS version - where is the 1002 version?


----------



## Super XP (Mar 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Asus UK website only has 0902 BIOS version - where is the 1002 version?


Check ASUS's global website. That's where I download my stuff from.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Asus UK website only has 0902 BIOS version - where is the 1002 version?



I grabbed it off of the asus forums



Aenra said:


> @cdawall those RAM speeds are nice, well done!
> 
> Can you post here or PM me your full voltage/clock settings? Everything BIOS related. I know what i'm asking for, so no offense taken if you can't be bothered, but i'd really appreciate it.
> 
> (took me weeks of reading to stabilize this one and end of the day? Most helpful thing ever was successful OC settings from other people. They won't be _your _settings, but they do show you the way)



I will drop them on the page.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 26, 2017)

HTC said:


> Judging by what i've seen thus far, i wonder what Ryzen gains *for games* (in percent) with CPU @ stock but high speed RAM (think 3600+) VS overclock CPU (4.0 GHz or 4.1 GHz) with ... say ... 2666 (2400??) MHz RAM.


Many boards only offer 3200 MHz as max memory divider, so such an investigation is nigh on impossible until AMD releases the AGESA they said would be coming in May (which is also why I tend to encourage people to buy the 3200 MHz C14 G.SKill sticks right now). If you keep this idea, I'll check it out and post some results then, if you could give me a friendly reminder.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 26, 2017)

Is it 12th April for Ryzen 5?


----------



## cdawall (Mar 26, 2017)

These aren't necessarily the exact settings I ran for the runs above, but the voltages are the same as what I have kept for all of the runs. I do not recommend using that much SOC voltage.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 26, 2017)

woah, no secondary timings even? That hurts!



Tatty_One said:


> Is it 12th April for Ryzen 5?



I do believe so. You can sign up here and they let you know when it happens:

http://www.amd.com/en/ryzen

1600X is looking mighty interesting.


----------



## Aenra (Mar 26, 2017)

@cdawall thank you so much man, much appreciated 

Is there a reason you have SOC on override? Rather than a straight manual value?
(i originally typed male.. freudian slip? lol)

And a second question. LLC in Ryzens; is it for vcore or overall input?
edit: It looks like it's for vcore specifically huh? I see a different LLC setting for SOC. Interesting.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 26, 2017)

Aenra said:


> @cdawall thank you so much man, much appreciated
> 
> Is there a reason you have SOC on override? Rather than a straight manual value?
> (i originally typed male.. freudian slip? lol)
> ...



Because I am lazy and just clicked the down until I could type in a value and as you said LLC is per item. The ram has it's own LLC as well.


----------



## Aenra (Mar 26, 2017)

You're.... LAZY?
How can you be so lax with a 1.48 vcore, lol? Are you insane? 

(good for you though, healthier in the long run i imagine)


----------



## HTC (Mar 26, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Many boards only offer 3200 MHz as max memory divider, so such an investigation is nigh on impossible until AMD releases the AGESA they said would be coming in May (which is also why I tend to encourage people to buy the 3200 MHz C14 G.SKill sticks right now). If you keep this idea, I'll check it out and post some results then, if you could give me a friendly reminder.



If 3600+ MHz RAM is unavailable (due to the BIOS issues and / or microcode), how about dropping the lower RAM speed to ... say ... 2133 MHz and do 3200MHz as the highest?

Same general idea: compare gains from stock CPU with faster RAM VS from OCed CPU with RAM @ lower speeds.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 26, 2017)

Aenra said:


> You're.... LAZY?
> How can you be so lax with a 1.48 vcore, lol? Are you insane?
> 
> (good for you though, healthier in the long run i imagine)



That is what it took to be stable. The SOC is only that high because of the ram clocks


----------



## Aenra (Mar 26, 2017)

Probably a bad joke; wasn't insinuating you're doing anything wrong


----------



## cdawall (Mar 26, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Probably a bad joke; wasn't insinuating you're doing anything wrong



Oh you are fine lol ask anyone on here I couldn't care less what happens to these chips as far as voltage degradation goes, I have always been that way.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 26, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Oh you are fine lol ask anyone on here I couldn't care less what happens to these chips as far as voltage degradation goes, I have always been that way.


wait so if you back off the SOC the system goes unstable?

Im hitting a hard wall at 40.50 @ 1.45 it wont do 41 even at 1.52 and i am thinking that another component is pooping out ... i only have .975 SOC voltage at 3200 ram settings.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 26, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> wait so if you back off the SOC the system goes unstable?
> 
> Im hitting a hard wall at 40.50 @ 1.45 it wont do 41 even at 1.52 and i am thinking that another component is pooping out ... i only have .975 SOC voltage at 3200 ram settings.



I can run 3200CL14 at 1.0v SOC just fine, but to get 36xxCL14 it seems to drink SOC.


----------



## Folterknecht (Mar 26, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I can run 3200CL14 at 1.0v SOC just fine, but to get 36xxCL14 it seems to drink SOC.



And switching from CL14 to CL15 - does that make a difference for voltage (SOC) at 3600 MHz?


----------



## cdawall (Mar 26, 2017)

Folterknecht said:


> And switching from CL14 to CL15 - does that make a difference for voltage (SOC) at 3600 MHz?



Never really tested it. I believe it was all the same when I started cranking it down.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 26, 2017)

Super XP said:


> Faster Ram on Ryzen gives great Gaming Performance numbers. Infinity Fabric is the key to hidden performance in Ryzen IMO.


Pretty interesting results, seems Ryzen is making the cut for games @ highest end after all!


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 26, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Pretty interesting results, seems Ryzen is making the cut for games @ highest end after all!


yeah it does game pretty well - too bad some games still have issues.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 26, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> yeah it does game pretty well - too bad some games still have issues.



It doesn't seem any slower than the 4.4ghz 5960X I use at work...At least not that I can actually see.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 26, 2017)

cdawall said:


> It doesn't seem any slower than the 4.4ghz 5960X I use at work...At least not that I can actually see.


try fallout 4 --- for me its the only game that has issues.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 26, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> try fallout 4 --- for me its the only game that has issues.


Fallout 4 is the issue, not Ryzen.  When I installed Fallout 4 for the first time, my friend had me optimizing it via some special Nvidia software, before even using it - telling me it wouldn't really work nice otherwise. It's a trainwreck.

I think atm it's safe to say just bad coded games have issues with Ryzen. Project Cars is another example, a completely red cloth for AMD in general (doesn't really like Radeons as well).


----------



## cdawall (Mar 27, 2017)

FA4 had all kinds of issues on anything and everything I run it on.


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 27, 2017)

Ordered  an MSI B350 PC mate....hope msi works some magic on memory compatibility ASROCK sure hasn't


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 27, 2017)

Lt_JWS said:


> Ordered  an MSI B350 PC mate....hope msi works some magic on memory compatibility ASROCK sure hasn't


Memory compatibility problems are due to the CPU, not the board. Hence AMD announcing they would release an AGESA update to fix those issues... AMD isn't going to fix problems caused by a board maker.. they cannot afford to. Currently ALL BOARDS have "memory issues"



> Finally, as part of AMDs ongoing development of the new AM4 platform, AMD will increase support for overclocked memory configurations with higher memory multipliers. *We intend to issue updates to motherboard partners in May that will enable them, on whatever products they choose, to support speeds higher than the current DDR4-3200 limit without refclk adjustments.* AMD Ryzen™ processors already deliver great performance in prosumer, workstation, and gaming workloads, and this update will permit even more value and performance for enthusiasts who chose to run overclocked memory.



https://community.amd.com/community...4/tips-for-building-a-better-amd-ryzen-system


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 27, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Memory compatibility problems are due to the CPU, not the board. Hence AMD announcing they would release an AGESA update to fix those issues... AMD isn't going to fix problems caused by a board maker.. they cannot afford to. Currently ALL BOARDS have "memory issues"
> 
> 
> 
> https://community.amd.com/community...4/tips-for-building-a-better-amd-ryzen-system


I really just want an MSI board as I've always had good luck with them. Just a personal preference. Newegg didn't have anything else in stock besides the asrock.  My current board list of QVL ram list nothing over 2x4gb @2400....


----------



## Kanan (Mar 27, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Memory compatibility problems are due to the CPU, not the board. Hence AMD announcing they would release an AGESA update to fix those issues... AMD isn't going to fix problems caused by a board maker.. they cannot afford to. Currently ALL BOARDS have "memory issues"
> 
> 
> 
> https://community.amd.com/community...4/tips-for-building-a-better-amd-ryzen-system


That's not entirely true. By now multiple reviewers blamed diverse motherboard brands to be somewhat lackluster memory compatibility wise because of inferior hardware and/or immature UEFI. That's why I always recommend Ryzen with Asus and nothing else, because I know Asus did a great job from the very beginning, and I know MSI is lackluster in that part too. How many times did I read now that "my MSI doesn't support it", and every time I see a Asus user everything is more or less fine. MSI and all the others are playing catch up now while Asus is already there.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 27, 2017)

Kanan said:


> That's not entirely true. By now multiple reviewers blamed diverse motherboard brands to be somewhat lackluster memory compatibility wise because of inferior hardware and/or immature UEFI. That's why I always recommend Ryzen with Asus and nothing else, because I know Asus did a great job from the very beginning, and I know MSI is lackluster in that part too. How many times did I read now that "my MSI doesn't support it", and every time I see a Asus user everything is more or less fine. MSI and all the others are playing catch up now while Asus is already there.



The only ram asus works well with is Samsung -b. Everything else is just as lackluster as every other brand.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 27, 2017)

Kanan said:


> That's not entirely true. By now multiple reviewers blamed diverse motherboard brands to be somewhat lackluster memory compatibility wise because of inferior hardware and/or immature UEFI. That's why I always recommend Ryzen with Asus and nothing else, because I know Asus did a great job from the very beginning, and I know MSI is lackluster in that part too. How many times did I read now that "my MSI doesn't support it", and every time I see a Asus user everything is more or less fine. MSI and all the others are playing catch up now while Asus is already there.


Meanwhile, I had great results with my ASRock board, with a BIOS given to be before the launch, that other brands just seem to be catching up to now. As well as what cdawall said above...

At least ASRock offers sub-timings on the Taichi; ASUS doesn't... and perhaps THAT is why I've had such luck when others have not. You do need to remember, I'm one of those reviewers that had Ryzen before the launch, although for board reviews rather than CPU review. cdawall I believe works at a hardware retailer, so has good access to parts like I do. We're playing with Ryzen every day, not doing  quick once-over for a launch-day review. W1zzard took his time as well.


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Mar 27, 2017)

I don't know where I could have posted this but, I got my RAM to 2400 (yay!) on the Gigabyte  GA-AX370-Gaming 5 (for those that are still rocking it).

I have the G.Skill F4-3000C15D-16GVS. Works great at 12-12-12-26 @ 1.35 volts

Thought this would help.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 27, 2017)

G.SKILL Flare X memory kit incoming today


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 27, 2017)

Memory is here.

Wow I can not believe how easy that was.

Pop in memory (Gigabyte board), select 3200, 14-14-14-34, 1.35 V. Boot. Done. 

Edit: runs at 1T too, automagically


----------



## ne6togadno (Mar 27, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> G.SKILL Flare X memory kit incoming today





W1zzard said:


> Memory is here.
> 
> Wow I can not believe how easy that was.
> 
> ...


boooo
stop trolling and go do some testing


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 27, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Memory is here.
> 
> Wow I can not believe how easy that was.
> 
> ...



G.Skill is the best. I had no issues whatsoever with running at its rated 3200 speed. Selected it in BIOS and has held it no problem.  
It pays to use the right memory for the specific board.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 27, 2017)

Right memory for the board????


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 27, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Right memory for the board????



Specifically QVL memory. It's quite limited at 3200 for the Asus CH6.  I know memory should just work but i didn't take that risk.


----------



## basco (Mar 27, 2017)

http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...tform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259/6

can ya change in bios 1T vs 2T

asking because of this:
http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-single-rank-versus-dual-rank-ddr4-memory-performance_192960/4

2 DIMM single-rank performance looks good as all the boards use a 1T command rate at all times, so it was generally higher than the same board running with all 4 DIMM slots occupied. The 4 DIMM performance numbers are a little confusing as at 2133MHz and 2400MHz the boards run a 2T command rate and then at 2666MHz that changes to 1T and that is why 4-DIMM 2666MHz DDR4 memory does so well.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 27, 2017)

ne6togadno said:


> stop trolling and go do some testing


already running


----------



## ne6togadno (Mar 27, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> already running


we will see results added to 1800x charts or you got another toy to play with.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 27, 2017)

ne6togadno said:


> we will see results added to 1800x charts or you got another toy to play with.


Making a new article, specific to memory on 1800X.

Gonna compare a bunch of speeds+timings


----------



## ne6togadno (Mar 27, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Making a new article, specific to memory on 1800X.
> 
> Gonna compare a bunch of speeds+timings


nice
cant wait


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 27, 2017)

I'm holding out hope for  msi A-XMP.....
Also be able to touch a memory setting without having to clear cmos every time would be cool.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 27, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Fallout 4 is the issue, not Ryzen.  When I installed Fallout 4 for the first time, my friend had me optimizing it via some special Nvidia software, before even using it - telling me it wouldn't really work nice otherwise. It's a trainwreck.
> 
> I think atm it's safe to say just bad coded games have issues with Ryzen. Project Cars is another example, a completely red cloth for AMD in general (doesn't really like Radeons as well).



Creation Engine, nuff said, Bethesda has polished that thing so many times that they ran out of polish altogether, evidence being Fallout 4 which still looks shit @ HD textures.


----------



## r9 (Mar 27, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Making a new article, specific to memory on 1800X.
> 
> Gonna compare a bunch of speeds+timings



Do you have that mysterious Windows patch installed that appeared couple days ago that improves the thread handling ?


----------



## HTC (Mar 27, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Making a new article, specific to memory on 1800X.
> 
> Gonna compare a bunch of speeds+timings



Please add a section that compares gain from higher RAM speeds only VS gains from CPU OC only: interesting to know if bigger gains come from OCing the CPU or having higher speed RAM.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 27, 2017)

r9 said:


> Do you have that mysterious Windows patch installed that appeared couple days ago that improves the thread handling ?


The machine is on latest Windows Update


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 27, 2017)

Hmm, what's the volts required for 4Ghz?  My system crashes on Prime at 3.9Ghz and 1.4v....  Is it way higher?


----------



## SanityGaming (Mar 28, 2017)

Vega with Ryzan will hopefully be a great combo and hoping amd can finally smack Intel and nvidia in the price line.
Am just get better and beťter.
Ryzan was a great thing for amd and have put them back high in the cpu market


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 28, 2017)

Ryzen based APU with Polaris based GPU component would be nice. Just thinking of taking A8-7410, but now I'm thinking about Ryzen based APU's. I just doubt they'll be priced as low as that A8 is currently...


----------



## SanityGaming (Mar 28, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Ryzen based APU with Polaris based GPU component would be nice. Just thinking of taking A8-7410, but now I'm thinking about Ryzen based APU's. I just doubt they'll be priced as low as that A8 is currently...


As long as they are cheaper than nvidia Ha


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 29, 2017)

I can run my 3200mhz ram at 2400mhz WOOHOO! bios update 2.2


----------



## v12dock (Mar 29, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Hmm, what's the volts required for 4Ghz?  My system crashes on Prime at 3.9Ghz and 1.4v....  Is it way higher?



I updated to the 1002 bios and was able to get 3.9 @ ~1.4v but crashed after running p95 overnight, might have been memory though.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 29, 2017)

v12dock said:


> I updated to the 1002 bios and was able to get 3.9 @ ~1.4v but crashed after running p95 overnight, might have been memory though.



mine is stable at 4050 but needs 1.46v  would need 1.44 for 4ghz and 1.42 3.9Ghz


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 30, 2017)

I was hoping for 100% scaling but... not bad for $260 worth of gpus!


----------



## Kanan (Mar 30, 2017)

Well don't expect perfect scaling when the 2nd GPU is running on x4 speeds  next time get a proper crossfire/SLI (X370) board.


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 30, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Well don't expect perfect scaling when the 2nd GPU is running on x4 speeds  next time get a proper crossfire/SLI (X370) board.



x4 speed only dropped the score ~40points...  As i've been running it in the "slow" slot for a couple of days since the cmos battery is under the first card


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 30, 2017)

Lt_JWS said:


> x4 speed only dropped the score ~40points...  As i've been running it in the "slow" slot for a couple of days since the cmos battery is under the first card



yeah it really doesnt matter all that much...


That's great work... your scores are very close to mine for considerably less money.


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 30, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> yeah it really doesnt matter all that much...
> 
> 
> That's great work... your scores are very close to mine for considerably less money.


Thanks, The MSI board is coming in tomorrow and the latest bios for it says "improved memory compatibility"!! I am hoping it lets me run my ram @ 3000+

A little more speed... all i wanna do on stock air


----------



## Kanan (Mar 30, 2017)

Lt_JWS said:


> x4 speed only dropped the score ~40points...  As i've been running it in the "slow" slot for a couple of days since the cmos battery is under the first card


Better test some games, Firestrike isn't really a real world simulator, could be that you lose much more than that in actual games. Why would someone use the 4x slot? This has nothing to do with the cmos battery.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 30, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Better test some games, Firestrike isn't really a real world simulator, could be that you lose much more than that in actual games. Why would someone use the 4x slot? This has nothing to do with the cmos battery.



probably to reset bios.


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 30, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> probably to reset bios.


Exactly,  with a dual slot card it covers up the cmos battery. It just makes things easier. I've  played a few games and I'm sure it's not getting 100% scale but the FPS have improved not getting drops into the 40s anymore.. pretty much a solid 60fps.


----------



## v12dock (Mar 30, 2017)

3.9 looks to be stable with 1002


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 31, 2017)

MSI board was a flop... It did run the ram @ 3200Mhz (when it feels like it) It did allow me to OC in bios, but not as much and was extremely unstable. It could just be bios.... The thing that scared me about it was how hot the VRMs got when overclocking. I'll give this to the ASRock board, its stable, runs cool and works without a lot of fuss!


----------



## infrared (Apr 4, 2017)

Well, I'm starting to understand what this thing wants now.

I did some playing around, 4.1GHz is benchable at 1.50v, did a quick Cinebench run and got 1844 which is a personal best atm.

Things were going well on the ram overclocking side of things. 3650MHz stable with 16-16-16-34 and 1.43v
SoC voltage is 1.175, may even be able to go a bit lower but that's fine for now.

So now I've set up a 4.0ghz(1.44v)/3650mhz profile that seems to run nicely in WCG and voltages aren't _too_ crazy.



Bios 1002 for the Crosshair VI definitely works nicer than 0902, but it's still a bit finicky. I was having a really hard time getting ram stable at 3200mhz with 100mhz bclk, but weirdly increasing the base clock and using a different memory divider bought it to life. 

I don't seem to have the best of luck with CPU's, my 6700k loves lots of voltage, and this 1800x seems to be the same :/


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 4, 2017)

update your speeeeecs!


----------



## v12dock (Apr 7, 2017)

I will try the new CH6 bios http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=167530 with the microcode update when I get home.


----------



## r9 (Apr 7, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Better test some games, Firestrike isn't really a real world simulator, could be that you lose much more than that in actual games. Why would someone use the 4x slot? This has nothing to do with the cmos battery.


You better ask why not.
Only 3-4% penalty on GTX 1080 which is waaaay more powerful card.


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 7, 2017)

infrared said:


> Well, I'm starting to understand what this thing wants now.
> 
> I did some playing around, 4.1GHz is benchable at 1.50v, did a quick Cinebench run and got 1844 which is a personal best atm.
> 
> ...



You should be able to tack on another ~50 pts using the CB15 BIAS setting in BIOS.
That's a great avatar BTW that movie was hilarious. Crazy college kids just killin themselves


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 7, 2017)

So do any of you B350 owners have any idea what is currently the safest bet for an ATX B350 investment?  Am currently looking at the Gigabyte Gaming 3 or Asrock Fatality (K3 I think it is), heard some horror stories already, just want a stable Bios that gives me some overclocking and a chance of some memory stability @ 3000mhz+ or am I asking too much at the moment?  I don't need all the bells and whistles of X370.


----------



## Lt_JWS (Apr 7, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> So do any of you B350 owners have any idea what is currently the safest bet for an ATX B350 investment?  Am currently looking at the Gigabyte Gaming 3 or Asrock Fatality (K3 I think it is), heard some horror stories already, just want a stable Bios that gives me some overclocking and a chance of some memory stability @ 3000mhz+ or am I asking too much at the moment?  I don't need all the bells and whistles of X370.


I really like my ASROCK board, that being said, stick to the QVL memory and you should be fine.

Update on the R5 1400 running happily @ 3.8Ghz 1.368 vcore set in bios! Still runs hot....


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 8, 2017)

Odd.

I'll re-run this but my CPU score is lower than my previous one despite clocks being higher (3.9 versus 3.8)...


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 8, 2017)

Okay, tried again.....

3.9Ghz, different voltage settings 1.4185 (or something like it)

Happy now.


----------



## Aenra (Apr 9, 2017)

Is it too early for us to know what's (read: relatively) safe? Voltages-wise?
Curious about both Core and Soc. 

Have yet to start reading on this, am waiting for any developments after May and the AGESA update and/or some newer mobos.


----------



## Vario (Apr 9, 2017)

How do these things scale with clock?  Is 4 Ghz essential for good performance or is it not a big deal if you get a bad sample?


----------



## Kanan (Apr 10, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Is it too early for us to know what's (read: relatively) safe? Voltages-wise?
> Curious about both Core and Soc.


IIRC AMD said not to go over 1.35 V. From what I read about it thus far, everything up to 1.45 V is "relatively" safe. 

@Vario : if the game utilizes more than 4 core's (let's say 6-8) it's okay to go with the stock clock, a game which utilizes only up to 4 cores would need the highest clock possible (also true for any Intel CPU), highend gaming with highend GPU's that is, for nice FPS.


----------



## drade (Apr 25, 2017)

Have you had the chance to OC the 1500x or 1600?


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 25, 2017)

I think I found a keeper. Ryzen5 1600x running 4123 MHz at 1.35v BIOS, 1.3v under load. Not quite P95 stable only lasted a few minutes before it dropped a worker but I like the voltage so far.


----------



## Aenra (Apr 25, 2017)

@Johan don't 'think', it _is_ a keeper 

edit: Since i see you're using Win7, i assume you've installed the patch backports? Any issues you might want to share with us, or was everything smooth?


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 25, 2017)

Aenra said:


> @Johan don't 'think', it _is_ a keeper
> 
> edit: Since i see you're using Win7, i assume you've installed the patch backports? Any issues you might want to share with us, or was everything smooth?


No real issues once I got the drivers integrated properly. I added the Xhci, USB and NVMe, I made a guide here. http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php/781091-AMD-Ryzen-Win7-ISO-Guide
The chipset drivers from AMD have Win7 included so once installed it was pretty smooth. http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/chipset?os=Windows 10 - 64


----------



## Super XP (Apr 25, 2017)

If 4123 MHz at 1.35v is stable. But won't run Prime. I will back down a bit on the MHz. Maybe try 4050 then work your way up from there.


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 26, 2017)

How about I just do this 1.425V under load 1.45V BIOS


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 26, 2017)

CPU-z is showing 1.526V it's starting to get scary.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 26, 2017)

looks like amd's process getting better


----------



## Kanan (Apr 26, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> looks like amd's process getting better


Nah, look at the retarded voltage - 1.53V? You can start to say goodbye ...


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 26, 2017)

Its benchmarking, not 24/7...grow a pair or go home. 

TPU cant seem to discern between the two very well.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Its benchmarking, not 24/7...grow a pair or go home.
> 
> TPU cant seem to discern between the two very well.


Overclocks of that kind are useless, when achieved at retarded voltages, it's comparable to LN2 overclocking which is pretty much irrelevant as well. I could run my 3960X at 5 GHz or even more with retarded voltages all the time. Am I doing it? No. Your point is pointless.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 26, 2017)

You are in the "go home" camp... and that is ok . I liken that stance to driving a speed limit at the dragstrip . So, dont come play...and dont hate either. 

Id bet thats on water... maybe chilled water...


----------



## Kanan (Apr 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> You are in the go gome camp... amd that is ok.


I'm in the realistic and rational world group, and that is perfectly fine, yeah.

It's not even that I say it's irrelevant for benchmarking, because that is maybe fun. What I said is just a answer to what he said, that's it. I don't think you got the connection.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 26, 2017)

Oh i get it... dont worry . I was trying to put some context behind it, but, the TPU effect is too strong sometimes. I digress. 

(And note the complete post now.. sorry)


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 26, 2017)

im pretty sure the cpu-z readings can be off in these cases...


----------



## Kanan (Apr 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Oh i get it... dont worry . I was trying to put some context behind it, but, the TPU effect is too strong sometimes. I digress.


I don't even know what you mean with the TPU effect. It's like you're having a monologue, buddy. Again, I'm not against overclocking and benchmarking for fun, but it's no relevant information regarding "better Ryzen yields" and "higher frequencies". It's also way too early for that anyway. At least wait 6 months for that to chime in, if it's not limited by architecture anyway.


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 26, 2017)

Like I said in my post 1.42V at the CPU. CPUz always reports way too high on these. There's also a bit of droop going on. That voltage is fine and no it's not 24/7 but not crazy either. Besides when done right it doesn't hurt the CPU and it is a fine candidate for LN2. That's when it gets crazy muahahaha. I did learn something else If I wanted to run 3600 ram I had to drop 50 MHz for the same V_Core so it wasn't a total loss.
 Now this is crazy  http://hwbot.org/submission/3509166_


----------



## infrared (Apr 26, 2017)

Wow, that's a screaming fast R5   (comment meant for @Johan45, but applies to that hwbot screenshot above too, holy crap!)

I may have bought a new 1800x from silicon lottery, quite enjoying this chip:

Joint first place on HWBot for 1800x on custom h2o.  I tried for 4.25ghz but it couldn't do it  at 1.506v, since i didn't plan to go over 1.5 anyway i called it a day. Pretty happy though. voltage in cpuz is accurate in this case. 1.48v LL4 set in bios.

Edit: currently crunching away at 4.1GHz 1.39v, which is +150mhz over last one.

Edit #2: Kinda interesting comparison, this cinebench score puts this in between a bunch of 5960X's at 4.8GHz.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Its benchmarking, not 24/7...grow a pair or go home.
> 
> TPU cant seem to discern between the two very well.



This always happens. Jesus my soc voltage made people cry, but I had the ram running 3600-3800


----------



## Kanan (Apr 26, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Again, I'm not against overclocking and benchmarking for fun, but it's no relevant information regarding "better Ryzen yields" and "higher frequencies". It's also way too early for that anyway. At least wait 6 months for that to chime in, if it's not limited by architecture anyway.


People here seem to have a hard time to understand the simplest of things. A single CPU doing what, 4.25 GHz, at high voltage, because of silicon lottery luck, is no fucking evidence on "better Ryzen yield" and "higher frequencies". Now this is the last time I'm gonna explain it, after that I'm in ignore mode and laughing.


----------



## Super XP (Apr 26, 2017)

CPUz does report the voltage a bit higher than it really is. Either way, I rather lower CPU speed a bit to sustain stability and keep the voltage at bay. Too high and you might kill the CPU. Perhaps.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 26, 2017)

infrared said:


> Wow, that's a screaming fast R5   (comment meant for @Johan45, but applies to that hwbot screenshot above too, holy crap!)
> 
> I may have bought a new 1800x from silicon lottery, quite enjoying this chip:
> 
> ...


they have definitely improved yields


----------



## Kanan (Apr 26, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> they have definitely improved yields


Proof? You're talking nonsense. It's way too early for that.


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 26, 2017)

Kanan said:


> People here seem to have a hard time to understand the simplest of things. A single CPU doing what, 4.25 GHz, at high voltage, because of silicon lottery luck, is no fucking evidence on "better Ryzen yield" and "higher frequencies". Now this is the last time I'm gonna explain it, after that I'm in ignore mode and laughing.



It's not a silicon lottery chip, bought through Canadacomputers. You're right though it's nothing to do with better yields I just got lucky with a better than average Ryzen.
This is also an overclocking and benchmarking thread so I wasn't under the impression that stability was a must.



infrared said:


> Wow, that's a screaming fast R5   (comment meant for @Johan45, but applies to that hwbot screenshot above too, holy crap!)
> 
> I may have bought a new 1800x from silicon lottery, quite enjoying this chip:
> 
> ...



That HWBot link was my 1700x which still works exactly as it did prior to freezing it.  @infrared Nice chip, much better than most. Can you get it to do 3800 Mem ? I managed once on my 1700x but couldn't get windows to start again after, just can't seem to stabilize it.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 26, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Like I said in my post 1.42V at the CPU. CPUz always reports way too high on these. There's also a bit of droop going on. That voltage is fine and no it's not 24/7 but not crazy either. Besides when done right it doesn't hurt the CPU and it is a fine candidate for LN2. That's when it gets crazy muahahaha. I did learn something else If I wanted to run 3600 ram I had to drop 50 MHz for the same V_Core so it wasn't a total loss.
> Now this is crazy  http://hwbot.org/submission/3509166_


If the ryzens could sustain this OC with a reasonable voltage on air or at least water. That would be something


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 26, 2017)

Yeah a 200 mhz overclock over xfr! Lets get excited!!!!!


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 26, 2017)

My chip is air temp stable at 3.9Ghz and 1.45v. Prior to that it was unstable at 1.43v.  It would crash in BF1 during loading screens. It's now been solid gaming for 11 days and counting.

So... Time to try 3.95?

Edit: @EarthDog -it's the TPU way to get every bit out of the chip is it not? An increase is still an increase


----------



## infrared (Apr 26, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> It's not a silicon lottery chip, bought through Canadacomputers. You're right though it's nothing to do with better yields I just got lucky with a better than average Ryzen.
> This is also an overclocking and benchmarking thread so I wasn't under the impression that stability was a must.
> 
> 
> That HWBot link was my 1700x which still works exactly as it did prior to freezing it.  @infrared Nice chip, much better than most. Can you get it to do 3800 Mem ? I managed once on my 1700x but couldn't get windows to start again after, just can't seem to stabilize it.



Lucky git! 

I'm memtest86+ stable (well, 1 pass of test 7) at 3700mhz with 18-18-18-38 timings on the 2666mhz divider with 1.46V VDimm and 1.25V SoC, trying to nudge it up but not having any luck booting at 3725 atm. 
Edit: I give up, tried different dividers, and SoC up to 1.275 and vdimm up to 1.475v but no luck. 3700mhz seems to be the limit of the IMC/inf. fabric on this one.
Now... Who do i buy some LN2 gear off? haha  Joking for now, but this needs to happen!

@EarthDog / @Johan45  any chance you can hit me up next time you're doing an ln2 sesh? 



the54thvoid said:


> My chip is air temp stable at 3.9Ghz and 1.45v. Prior to that it was unstable at 1.43v.  It would crash in BF1 during loading screens. It's now been solid gaming for 11 days and counting.
> 
> So... Time to try 3.95?
> 
> Edit: @EarthDog -it's the TPU way to get every bit out of the chip is it not? An increase is still an increase


Dunno, going above 1.40V you get quickly diminishing returns, and these things churn out a lot more heat at 1.45. I wouldn't want to go any higher for a daily setting, even on water. You could deffo get to 3.95ghz for short bench runs or something though


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> My chip is air temp stable at 3.9Ghz and 1.45v. Prior to that it was unstable at 1.43v.  It would crash in BF1 during loading screens. It's now been solid gaming for 11 days and counting.
> 
> So... Time to try 3.95?
> 
> Edit: @EarthDog -it's the TPU way to get every bit out of the chip is it not? An increase is still an increase


This morning, and yesterday, TPU and a few long time users have really really disappointed me... oh well, its just me... so who cares, but damn, the dumb in this place has grown exponentially lately.


----------



## 64K (Apr 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> This morning, and yesterday, TPU and a few long time users have really really disappointed me... oh well, its just me... so who cares, but damn, the dumb in this place has grown exponentially lately.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> This morning, and yesterday, TPU and a few long time users have really really disappointed me... oh well, its just me... so who cares, but damn, the dumb in this place has grown exponentially lately.


Stay positive, focus on the other 354 days of the year


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 26, 2017)

infrared said:


> Lucky git!
> 
> I'm memtest86+ stable (well, 1 pass of test 7) at 3700mhz with 18-18-18-38 timings on the 2666mhz divider with 1.46V VDimm and 1.25V SoC, trying to nudge it up but not having any luck booting at 3725 atm.
> Edit: I give up, tried different dividers, and SoC up to 1.275 and vdimm up to 1.475v but no luck. 3700mhz seems to be the limit of the IMC/inf. fabric on this one.
> ...




That's kind of where mine stopped. 3744 IIRC was the best I could manage at decent timings, never found I needed the SOC that high though. Don't think I have been over 1.1 TBH. If you haven't try PLL to 2.0V and VDDP or VDPP can't get that straight ATM at 1.2v I found both those helped at higher frequencies. This was bench stable don't know about actual stability but good enough for X265 4K which is a tough ass bench
Oh and I set the VTT  to 0.85-0.9v


----------



## infrared (Apr 26, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> That's kind of where mine stopped. 3744 IIRC was the best I could manage at decent timings, never found I needed the SOC that high though. Don't think I have been over 1.1 TBH. If you haven't try PLL to 2.0V and VDDP or VDPP can't get that straight ATM at 1.2v I found both those helped at higher frequencies. This was bench stable don't know about actual stability but good enough for X265 4K which is a tough ass bench
> Oh and I set the VTT  to 0.85-0.9v


Nicely done, yeah x265 bench at 4K is pretty brutal. I was having a stab at that earlier but was always a couple of fps down on the others at 4.2ghz so i need to figure out why, maybe just closing down loads of services, or that silly bias option in the bios. I can't believe your 3744mhz aida bench was at CL14, v.nice. 

I'll give some of those settings a try, thanks for giving me some hints  The SOC was just me clutching at straws tbh, it didn't actually get me any further than 1.15V iirc. VDDP was set to 1.02V so I'll try bumping that up next time. PLL was already at 2.0. I had the ram at 1.46v so set VTT to .73v based on the default 1/2 vdimm, I'll try going higher on that too.

What voltage do you find the mem works well at? I seem to have a weird thing going on where 1.43v is good, 1.44-1.45v appears to make things worse, then getting past that 1.46v helped out with the 3700mhz, above that I can't boot anyway so don't really know. I've heard samsung b-die likes high voltage but not sure where the limits are, I don't really want to hurt the nice trident z's


----------



## Kanan (Apr 26, 2017)

I never said I'm only interested in practical 24/7/365 overclocks. That said overclock the heck out of it if you want, I wouldn't care and I'm still curious about it.  

@the54thvoid honestly I would've sold that chip or gave it back to get a higher clocking one. I mean you paid the 100 bucks extra for the 1700X - so you deserve more than that imo.


----------



## infrared (Apr 26, 2017)

Edit: sorry @Kanan , replying to the wrong person.


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 26, 2017)

infrared said:


> What voltage do you find the mem works well at? I seem to have a weird thing going on where 1.43v is good, 1.44-1.45v appears to make things worse, then getting past that 1.46v helped out with the 3700mhz, above that I can't boot anyway so don't really know. I've heard samsung b-die likes high voltage but not sure where the limits are, I don't really want to hurt the nice trident z's


For those timings/speed 1.6V dropping to 3600 same timings 1.5-1.55V


----------



## ratirt (Apr 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Yeah a 200 mhz overclock over xfr! Lets get excited!!!!!


I see on the link over 5.2 that's what I was referring to bro. 2 bad you missed it  Maybe other time you will notice the difference


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> This morning, and yesterday, TPU and a few long time users have really really disappointed me... oh well, its just me... so who cares, but damn, the dumb in this place has grown exponentially lately.



Yeah, saw that.  We've never been hardcore like OCN with our outlook on overclocking. 

Still...My own project was get 3.9Ghz on air on all cores and I got that.  Happy enough.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> This morning, and yesterday, TPU and a few long time users have really really disappointed me... oh well, its just me... so who cares, but damn, the dumb in this place has grown exponentially lately.



It comes in spurts. Maybe it is just their time of month?


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Yeah, saw that.  We've never been hardcore like OCN with our outlook on overclocking.
> 
> Still...My own project was get 3.9Ghz on air on all cores and I got that.  Happy enough.


We used to be better/more interested, there was a period in my first 3 or 4 years where there was quite a following here, both extreme and just enthusiast, damn I literally used to buy every new CPU and board combo that was released, cost me a fortune, I do think that with the more modern CPU's and platforms they have taken away some of the challenges and perhaps that is in part to blame for the lack of ambition, certainly at the extreme level, that's why it is quite nice to see Ryzen offering a few fresh challenges.


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 26, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> We used to be better/more interested, there was a period in my first 3 or 4 years where there was quite a following here, both extreme and just enthusiast, damn I literally used to buy every new CPU and board combo that was released, cost me a fortune, I do think that with the more modern CPU's and platforms they have taken away some of the challenges and perhaps that is in part to blame for the lack of ambition, certainly at the extreme level, that's why it is quite nice to see Ryzen offering a few fresh challenges.


It most certainly is and I've been enjoying it honestly. Some new/different voltages to play with and try to understand their functions. Just a shame they run out of gas so quickly. 
This is just for reference on the Ryzen voltage reporting with CPUz. I have highlighted the "actual" CPU voltage in HWinfo64 to demonstrate the disparity. This was an LLC setting 03 on the CHVI with it on auto it was dropping below 1.39V and causing some stability issues.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 26, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> It most certainly is and I've been enjoying it honestly. Some new/different voltages to play with and try to understand their functions. Just a shame they run out of gas so quickly.
> This is just for reference on the Ryzen voltage reporting with CPUz. I have highlighted the "actual" CPU voltage in HWinfo64 to demonstrate the disparity. This was an LLC setting 03 on the CHVI with it on auto it was dropping below 1.39V and causing some stability issues.
> 
> View attachment 87051


Is this the newest CPU Z you got installed? I thought I saw it report 2x4 Cores as in accounting for CCX'es.

I think Intel killed a lot of fun off by limiting overclocking to K cpus. Those Skylake parts that were able to overclock despite not being K on Z boards weren't very prominent in the overclocking scene because most bought the K cpus anyway.


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 26, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Is this the newest CPU Z you got installed? I thought I saw it report 2x4 Cores as in accounting for CCX'es.
> 
> I think Intel killed a lot of fun off by limiting overclocking to K cpus. Those Skylake parts that were able to overclock despite not being K on Z boards weren't very prominent in the overclocking scene because most bought the K cpus anyway.


Yes very latest CPUz and I think it was AIDA64 initially that was reporting as 2 CPUs IIRC. The nonK skylake were just not practical, needed a special BIOS and it disable temp monitoring and AVX instructions so in the end they only kind of overclocked.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 26, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> The nonK skylake were just not practical, needed a special BIOS and it disable temp monitoring and AVX instructions so in the end they only kind of overclocked.


Well at least @Raevenlord uses such a system, but he's one of only a few I saw doing this.


----------



## infrared (Apr 26, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Yes very latest CPUz and I think it was AIDA64 initially that was reporting as 2 CPUs IIRC. The nonK skylake were just not practical, needed a special BIOS and it disable temp monitoring and AVX instructions so in the end they only kind of overclocked.


I saw some 6600/6700's that overclocked further than my 6700k back before intel veto'd bclk overclocking. Such a shame that was short lived.

edit: well, almost as far. It kinda made sense intel would want to stomp that out. Anyway sorry, /offtopic lol


----------



## Raevenlord (Apr 26, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Yes very latest CPUz and I think it was AIDA64 initially that was reporting as 2 CPUs IIRC. The nonK skylake were just not practical, needed a special BIOS and it disable temp monitoring and AVX instructions so in the end they only kind of overclocked.





Kanan said:


> Well at least @Raevenlord uses such a system, but he's one of only a few I saw doing this.



I don't use any workloads which require AVX instructions, and keep a conservative vCore for it (didn't try to OC to 4.5 or such.) That said, besides downloading a specific BIOS from MSI's site, no hard work involved at all, and everything works smooth as silk. Couldn't be happier with my choice at the time. Pretty incredible price/performance.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 26, 2017)

There you go 

@infrared I think it's fine at least if we still talk about CPUs.


----------



## blacktruckryder (Apr 29, 2017)

Bit the bullet and picked up a 1600 and a msi x370 pro carbon. Pretty impressed so far. Feels just as peppy as my 7600k @ 5Ghz. Fairly close in single theaded benchmarks. The 7600 comes out on top, barely.

Managed 3.9Ghz @ 1.37v. 

4Ghz is just out of reach though. Even with 1.45v it wasn't stable.


----------



## r9 (Apr 29, 2017)

I see all this comments about insane voltage and stuff.
If the cpu is stable and the temperature is at check you are not hurting the  CPU.
Before anything it will become unstable.
Here's one of my old overclock E5200 @1.7V on air.


----------



## r9 (Apr 29, 2017)

Kanan said:


> People here seem to have a hard time to understand the simplest of things. A single CPU doing what, 4.25 GHz, at high voltage, because of silicon lottery luck, is no fucking evidence on "better Ryzen yield" and "higher frequencies". Now this is the last time I'm gonna explain it, after that I'm in ignore mode and laughing.


It has to start somewhere.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 29, 2017)

r9 said:


> It has to start somewhere.


The problem is, it's mainly a architectural problem, do you think it's a coincidence all Ryzen, whether 4 or 6 or 8 core, run into a wall at about 4 to 4.1 GHz, I mean 99% of them? Either it's a architectural problem or the node is immature. I think it's architectural.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 29, 2017)

r9 said:


> It has to start somewhere.



Yep and we saw the same thing with phenom 1, by the end of life there were multiple chips all hitting into the 3.8-4ghz range, which was very similar to the Phenom II's on initial release.


----------



## r9 (Apr 29, 2017)

Kanan said:


> The problem is, it's mainly a architectural problem, do you think it's a coincidence all Ryzen, whether 4 or 6 or 8 core, run into a wall at about 4 to 4.1 GHz, I mean 99% of them? Either it's a architectural problem or the node is immature. I think it's architectural.



Core count doesn't mean anything they all start as the same silicon.
Its always a bit of both. But improving yields as unavoidable, especially considering the jump from 32nm to 14nm.
I'm pretty sure they can improve.
I find it bit odd too that all those CPU's are so close binned.
That's something that you can expect from mature process.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 29, 2017)

r9 said:


> Core count doesn't mean anything they all start as the same silicon.
> Its always a bit of both. But improving yields as unavoidable, especially considering the jump from 32nm to 14nm.
> I'm pretty sure they can improve.
> I find it bit odd too that all those CPU's are so close binned.
> That's something that you can expect from mature process.



I have seen a 200mhz spread for the 1700x vs 1800x pretty consistently.


----------



## r9 (Apr 29, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I have seen a 200mhz spread for the 1700x vs 1800x pretty consistently.


What is the spread for i7 7700 for example ?


----------



## Kanan (Apr 29, 2017)

r9 said:


> Core count doesn't mean anything they all start as the same silicon.


That's wrong, as it's clear that Intel CPUs with lesser core's clock clearly higher. I'd say that's dependant on architecture as well and differs.


r9 said:


> I find it bit odd too that all those CPU's are so close binned.


They aren't so close binned, I was just talking about the best Ryzen's, a lot of them only do less than 4 GHz, some of them less than 3.9 or 3.8 GHz.


----------



## hat (Apr 30, 2017)

r9 said:


> I see all this comments about insane voltage and stuff.
> If the cpu is stable and the temperature is at check you are not hurting the  CPU.
> Before anything it will become unstable.
> Here's one of my old overclock E5200 @1.7V on air.



Excessive voltage will kill parts. It's not just temperature.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 30, 2017)

r9 said:


> What is the spread for i7 7700 for example ?



They all seem to hit 5 if you have the voltage and cooling...


----------



## FlanK3r (May 3, 2017)

More in: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...s-in-action-thuban-and-ryzen-together.232981/


----------



## fullinfusion (May 3, 2017)

cdawall said:


> They all seem to hit 5 if you have the voltage and cooling...


And higher.. 5.2 at 1.44v.. did 5.3 on the weekend but yes 5ghz pretty easy.


----------



## Johan45 (May 30, 2017)

Finally had time to freeze my 1600X, one bonus was I was able to keep mem speed up 32-3300 MHz even at -180°


----------



## ratirt (May 31, 2017)

Nice that you have tried it. 5.2 is impressive but the Vcore is enormous. If this 1600x could run 5ghz with a reasonable vcore it would have been best CPU ever and kicking. The only question is why does the 1600x is being recognized as 12c/12t? Is that what it normally is? 6c/12t should've been right?


----------

