# AMD Ryzen Clock and Turbo speeds query



## Melvis (Mar 5, 2017)

Ok so im trying to understand the new R7 1700/1700X and 1800X default clock speeds. Learning more for myself and friends who are looking to get a Zen system to upgrade to from there old AM3/AM3+ Systems. 

Now I didnt realise at first that the Turbo speed of the 1800X (4.0GHz) was only 1 core and XFR is also just the 1 core on only X370 Motherboards? Anyway So I know that now the 1800X is base clock 3.6GHz, turbos ALL 8 cores to 3.7GHz and then turbos 1 core to 4/4.1Ghz. 

So now I need to know the other two's clock speeds, I know base speeds and Turbo speeds but im guessing the turbo speeds they are saying is only 1 core again? what is the in between Turbo speeds of the 1700/1700X with all 8 cores? 

This info will help me and my friends that wish to upgrade to Ryzen and to know what motherboard would suit them best.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 5, 2017)

1700X has XFR which is the boost function, 1700 doesn't.
They should all clock to around 4.0GHz.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 5, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> 1700X has XFR which is the boost function, 1700 doesn't.
> They should all clock to around 4.0GHz.


1700x Turbo is 3.9 on one core, 3.5 on all core, 3..4 GHz default.


----------



## Melvis (Mar 5, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> 1700x Turbo is 3.9 on one core, 3.5 on all core, 3..4 GHz default.



and to get to the 3.9 (XFR) must be on a X370 motherboard correct?


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 5, 2017)

Melvis said:


> and to get to the 3.9 (XFR) must be on a X370 motherboard correct?


I think so, yes. IIRC that's how it is supposed to work, but I haven't got aboard with the other chipsets yet. It is also worth noting that on some motherboards currently, if you OC ram, you lose XFR.


----------



## Melvis (Mar 5, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> I think so, yes. IIRC that's how it is supposed to work, but I haven't got aboard with the other chipsets yet. It is also worth noting that on some motherboards currently, if you OC ram, you lose XFR.



Ok thanks thats good to know about the RAM and XFR.

So the 1700 is 3.0, boosts to 3.1 ALL 8 cores then 3.7 on 1 core? im guessing?

Im a bit surprised at the whole turbo speed boost of only 1 core, I really would of thought they would do that for at least half the amount of cores (4) like they did with Bulldozer, would of made alot more sense and id say gaming performance would of been better, what game today is going to use 1 core??? Find that very bizzare and to me shows why most of the gaming results are so low couse there only really clocking up to a max 3.7GHz couse most games these days will use at least 4cores and to be able to use those 4 cores it has to be clocked at 3.7GHz (unless you manually OC of course) Clock the 4 cores up to 4GHz and down clock the others when it comes to gaming to also keep temps and power usage in check. Oh well.


----------



## kn00tcn (Mar 5, 2017)

when was it shown that 1700 does NOT have XFR?







even the leaks confirmed XFR is on 1700

i dont remember spec sheets saying turbo (3.7ghz) is for one core, also the benchmarks would show much worse differences in full load like cinebench

also, not sure why you think it will be only one clock speed, they will be constantly changing (probably), i skimmed a few 1700 & overclock reviews today, actually disappointed that there are so many 1800x reviews, but 1700 is the most interesting one to test... we need a chart of clockspeed & also power usage when overclocked to 4ghz (overclockersclub for whatever reason had the best overclock on 1700, in fact all three cpus failed to reach 4.2ghz, they omitted any power numbers other than what voltage they set in bios)

(edit: in case the image isnt loading http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11170/AMD Ryzen 7 Press Deck-11.jpg )


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 5, 2017)

Weren't they saying X stands for XFR and not having X in the name means no XFR? They did say all CPU's can be overclocked, but those without X don't have automatic (XFR) overclocking. Confusing...


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Mar 5, 2017)

kn00tcn said:


> when was it shown that 1700 does NOT have XFR?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The XFR part of the graph on the R7 1700 is not consistent with the XFR on the R7 17/800x. This slide does not look official...


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 5, 2017)

All 3 have XFR , even 1700 but the clock speed difference is minuscule. Anyway you are guaranteed to be able to overclock it on all cores up to the turbo speed , there is no reason why you wouldn't do that immediately out of the box.


----------



## kn00tcn (Mar 5, 2017)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> The XFR part of the graph on the R7 1700 is not consistent with the XFR on the R7 17/800x. This slide does not look official...


haha... anandtech's official review with an unwatermarked pressdeck (the same deck that leaked a couple days earlier with watermarks, with the same slide), yet you want to call it not official 

of course it's not the same as the x, that's how they make you buy the more expensive model! why else did they even put an X, why didnt they just call them 1600/1700/1800?


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Mar 5, 2017)

kn00tcn said:


> haha... anandtech's official review with an unwatermarked pressdeck (the same deck that leaked a couple days earlier with watermarks, with the same slide), yet you want to call it not official
> 
> of course it's not the same as the x, that's how they make you buy the more expensive model! why else did they even put an X, why didnt they just call them 1600/1700/1800?



I did not take a detailed look on the official slides... However looking at that slide without knowing that it was official the XFR part of the graph relative to the 1700 looks like it was added at the last minute, it is not centered the same way and the thickness of the bar doesn't even match with the other bars of the 1700, that is why I commented that. Glad you clarified this, thanks!


----------



## Kanan (Mar 5, 2017)

From what I've heard 1800X is a better binned CPU, it overclocks better than the others, that said I'd still shoot for the 1700 or 1700X. Or wait for revision II and better overclocking capabilities.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Mar 5, 2017)

After further looking at AMD's upcoming chips and their clock speeds, I get the feeling they're seriously understating the limitations of their turbo.

Here are the red flags as I see it...

1. All Ryzens are poor at OCing
2. Boost does not support all cores
3. The 1500X is clocked at only 3.5-3.7

That's a low clock speed for a quad. I expected it to be better than their 8 cores. This all leads me to think they went too low on wattage, and sacrificed a LOT of performance in the process. So at this point I'm thinking price is all they really have going, and that Intel will answer with something that could once again be a big blow to them.

I'm thinking AMD stock holders may want to sell while it's high, before Intel comes out with their next round of chips.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 5, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> After further looking at AMD's upcoming chips and their clock speeds, I get the feeling they're seriously understating the limitations of their turbo.
> 
> Here are the red flags as I see it...
> 
> ...



It's not the voltage or power saving, it's the manufacturing process leap , there was not way they would be able to clock these chip anywhere near Kaby Lake, this however isn't the problem.

All I'm hoping is the prices will determine people to finally make higher core/thread count CPU's more common. Software developers will never waste resources to multithread their applications/games if the majority of people buy hyperthreaded dual cores and quad cores.  Intel isn't budging it's line-up for years , this is limiting the amount of optimization developer are willing to put in their products and it also took it's toll on API's. This is the real issue , I really hoped AMD wouldn't join the idiotic higher clock speed race, we are not in the early 2000s anymore we don't need P4 all over again.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Mar 5, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> It's not the voltage or power saving, it's the manufacturing process leap...


We won't know that until the REAL experts at small die make their next round of chips. As recent history has taught us, AMD are never the best at first implementation, whether it be dedicated quads, floating module chips, or smaller dies.

Intel on the other hand study such things as die shrinking to the nth degree, knowing full well it would take materials like Halfnium to pull it off. So no, I don't think it's just a limitation in the next step in a smaller process. I think it's more that AMD is trying again and failing to beat Intel to the punch.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 5, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> AMD are never the best at first implementation, whether it be dedicated quads, floating module chips, or smaller dies.



That's exactly what I meant. They had to make too much of leap to end up with a Kaby Lake killer as many had hoped in terms of IPC and clock speed one thing people forget is how much more expensive these development cycles are getting , so they took the next best approach : similar IPC and high core count for less money. I still don't understand why Ryzen is so cryptic to people. Global Foundries is preventing them from ever beating Intel in terms of manufacturing process , that's the reality and there is no sign this will change anytime soon. As a result they need to do things differently ,they don't have a choice.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 5, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> That's exactly what I meant. They had to make too much of leap to end up with a Kaby Lake killer as many had hoped in terms of IPC and clock speed one thing people forget is how much more expensive these development cycles are getting , so they took the next best approach : similar IPC and high core count for less money. I still don't understand why Ryzen is so cryptic to people. Global Foundries is preventing them from ever beating Intel in terms of manufacturing process , that's the reality and there is no sign this will change anytime soon. As a result they need to do things differently ,they don't have a choice.



Too many people around here think AMD has the same resources as Intel which is baffling.


----------



## Vario (Mar 5, 2017)

Kanan said:


> From what I've heard 1800X is a better binned CPU, it overclocks better than the others, that said I'd still shoot for the 1700 or 1700X. Or wait for revision II and better overclocking capabilities.


Definitely wait for revision II IMO.  Zambezi to Vishera was a decent jump.  I imagine a similar jump from Ryzen v. 1 to Ryzen v.2 will be enough to bring either clock speed or IPC to an acceptable standard.

If I was buying Ryzen now I'd get the 1700.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 6, 2017)

Vario said:


> Definitely wait for revision II IMO.  Zambezi to Vishera was a decent jump.  I imagine a similar jump from Ryzen v. 1 to Ryzen v.2 will be enough to bring either clock speed or IPC to an acceptable standard.
> 
> If I was buying Ryzen now I'd get the 1700.


I already made the mistake with Phenom II (am2+ earliest models), wouldn't do it again. GloFo always needs time to sort things out, Intel is way better in that regard. Still if I'd be in dire need of a new cpu I'd easily shoot for the 1700/1700X and nothing else. I don't like Intel and I made the switch because I had to, not because I really wanted.


----------



## Vario (Mar 6, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I already made the mistake with Phenom II (am2+ earliest models), wouldn't do it again. GloFo always needs time to sort things out, Intel is way better in that regard. Still if I'd be in dire need of a new cpu I'd easily shoot for the 1700/1700X and nothing else. I don't like Intel and I made the switch because I had to, not because I really wanted.


Zen+ should be 7nm also.


----------



## Melvis (Mar 6, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I already made the mistake with Phenom II (am2+ earliest models), wouldn't do it again. GloFo always needs time to sort things out, Intel is way better in that regard. Still if I'd be in dire need of a new cpu I'd easily shoot for the 1700/1700X and nothing else. I don't like Intel and I made the switch because I had to, not because I really wanted.



Mistake with Phenom II? it was miles better then Phenom I, was one of AMD's best CPU's and it would beat the crap out of any Core 2 Duo quad and the 6 cores gave the first 17's a run for there money. 

AMD have done this for the last lot of CPU's Phenom 2 was great, Piledriver was pretty damn good, and id say Zen 2.0 should be great also which I will jump on id say.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 6, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> After further looking at AMD's upcoming chips and their clock speeds, I get the feeling they're seriously understating the limitations of their turbo.
> 
> Here are the red flags as I see it...
> 
> ...



1. By "all" you mean all available 8 core 16 threads CPU's? Go on, check the 6900k overclocks. You'll be surprised where they start hitting the OC wall. It's around 4GHz. Going beyond that and you get stupid voltages and insane heat output.

2. Boost doesn't work on all cores with Intel either. The stuff you actually see are special feature on motherboards like setting found on ASUS boards "ASUS Multicore" which just takes the turbo boost multiplier and applies it to ALL cores. But without this setting, turbo only gets applied to select cores when you're not pushing all the cores at 100%, to enhance single/dual threaded performance further.

3. 1500X is clocked at only that. But you don't actually have a chip to know how far it maybe overclocks, so that remains a mystery for now.


----------



## Melvis (Mar 6, 2017)

What are the boost clocks and cores on the 6900k for interest sake?


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 6, 2017)

*Core i7 6900k*
Base: 3.2 GHz
Turbo Boost: 3.7 GHz
Turbo Max Boost: 4 GHz


----------



## Melvis (Mar 6, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> *Core i7 6900k*
> Base: 3.2 GHz
> Turbo Boost: 3.7 GHz
> Turbo Max Boost: 4 GHz



3.7GHz all cores? and how many cores at 4GHz?


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 6, 2017)

Melvis said:


> 3.7GHz all cores? and how many cores at 4GHz?



Core i7 6900k
Base: 3.2
Turbo: 3.7 = All Cores
Max Turbo: 4.0 = Single Core

Ryzen 1800X
Base: 3.6
Boost: 3.7 = All Cores
Max Boost 4.0 = Single Core


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 6, 2017)

The base clock is kinda irrelevant to be honest since CPU's always go into Boost mode for 99% of the time. Only time it would fall back to base clock is when it was thermal throttling. Which, if cooled adequately, never does that.


----------



## Aenra (Mar 6, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> The base clock is kinda irrelevant to be honest since CPU's always go into Boost mode for 99% of the time. Only time it would fall back to base clock is when it was thermal throttling. Which, if cooled adequately, never does that.



Don't "turbo" speeds also vary or turn off entirely according to cores utilized? As in, why do you find base clock irrelevant?


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 6, 2017)

Unless you're thermally gimping a CPU, it'll always go to boost clock.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 6, 2017)

I'm pretty sure the amount of load also determines whether or not turbo kicks in , it looks like Ryzen has some aggressive power saving as well and  because of this I doubt boost clocks trigger in the same way as they do for Intel CPUs . I suspect what happens is in most games turbo doesn't actually kick in or is constantly switching due to the load begin too small across all threads or too high on 1 core. I couldn't find any benchmarks with any of these CPUs on stock vs OC'ed to turbo speed to see if this is really true. 1700 would be the interesting case.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 6, 2017)

Melvis said:


> Mistake with Phenom II? it was miles better then Phenom I, was one of AMD's best CPU's and it would beat the crap out of any Core 2 Duo quad and the 6 cores gave the first 17's a run for there money.
> 
> AMD have done this for the last lot of CPU's Phenom 2 was great, Piledriver was pretty damn good, and id say Zen 2.0 should be great also which I will jump on id say.


Read the context/what I quoted, you didn't get me.

The Phenom II was one of the best cpus I ever had, I used it for almost 5 years and had to replace it because the bandwidth sucked and wasn't able to drive BF4 (DDR2 800 at CL4, all other games like Crysis 3 ran fine). Still it was a bad overclocker, only did a +700 which is a bit more than 20%, later models easily did more than 4ghz. This is what I meant earlier, Intels manufacturing is and simply always was better than GloFo. Remember Core 2 Quad times, or early 32nm, all great overclockers.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Mar 7, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> That's exactly what I meant. They had to make too much of leap to end up with a Kaby Lake killer as many had hoped in terms of IPC and clock speed one thing people forget is how much more expensive these development cycles are getting , so they took the next best approach : similar IPC and high core count for less money. I still don't understand why Ryzen is so cryptic to people. Global Foundries is preventing them from ever beating Intel in terms of manufacturing process , that's the reality and there is no sign this will change anytime soon. As a result they need to do things differently ,they don't have a choice.



Well, the leap was mostly from the crap performing Bulldozer, to what they SHOULD have been pursuing all along. The die shrink leap is big for them, yes, but they never seem to get that such things take a lot of R&D expertise, time and equipment, which Intel has, and they don't. I'm not implying Ryzen is a flop, it's just not as monumental as they and many make it sound.

As for how their boost works, just the fact that they've gone to severely reducing active cores when it kicks into it's higher range is not at all a good sign. With Bulldozer it was just the opposite, the games needed to be heavily threaded, but it seems now their power management suffers with all cores active at high load, so they had to compromise.

I'm not really convinced anyone has made a great gaming quad core yet.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 8, 2017)

Kanan said:


> From what I've heard 1800X is a better binned CPU, it overclocks better than the others, that said I'd still shoot for the 1700 or 1700X. Or wait for revision II and better overclocking capabilities.


higher clockspeeds.. likely.. Better overclocking, no.

From what I've seen the 1700/1700X may not make to 4ghz. That said, they are able to overclock over their boost and xfr. The 1800X, I havent seen many (any?) 24/7 stable over 4.1 Ghz... which is their XFR. Literally zero overclocking headroom clockspeed wise.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 8, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> higher clockspeeds.. likely.. Better overclocking, no.
> 
> From what I've seen the 1700/1700X may not make to 4ghz. That said, they are able to overclock over their boost and xfr. The 1800X, I havent seen many (any?) 24/7 stable over 4.1 Ghz... which is their XFR. Literally zero overclocking headroom clockspeed wise.


Only if xfr is for all cores, 3.6 to 4.1 ghz is a big enough overclock (people tend to compare amds 8 cores to Intels 4 cores which is a stupid comparison, the 8 cores of Intel aren't doing much more than 4ghz too and also start lower). bigger than those other ones usually go compared to the 1800x. Anyway it's just what I heard not what is a fact - we need more data for this to be sure. In general my own opinion is, that those smaller ones have a good chance to be as good as the 1800x or even better. My X2 3800+ was running easily at 2800mhz despite being the entry model (thats a 800mhz plus or 40%), that's FX-60 level.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 8, 2017)

I'm thinking we'll see better scaling on the quads since its only one CCX. It also doesn't have to share that fabric interconnect thing. The hex cores are still going to have to use both CCX and that interconnect.

The overclock from intel I'm thinking about is a 6900k. Tops out 4.3ghz  on average...

Xfr is 2c/4t at a MAX of 4.1. It's all c/t at 3.7 (1800X).


----------



## Vario (Mar 8, 2017)

kn00tcn said:


>





isn't "X Factor" kind of a tired edgy branding by now?  What is this, the 1990s?  Next chipset codename "No Fear"?


----------



## Kanan (Mar 8, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I'm thinking we'll see better scaling on the quads since its only one CCX. It also doesn't have to share that fabric interconnect thing. The hex cores are still going to have to use both CCX and that interconnect.
> 
> The overclock from intel I'm thinking about is a 6900k. Tops out 4.3ghz  on average...
> 
> Xfr is 2c/4t at a MAX of 4.1. It's all c/t at 3.7 (1800X).


I think you'll be interested in this as well, it's a in depth look at how Ryzen works and some outlooks:


----------



## Aenra (Mar 8, 2017)

Vario said:


> isn't "X Factor" kind of a tired edgy branding by now?  What is this, the 1990s?



As opposed to.. Crosshair Maximus Hero VIII? Razer? RGB lights flashing on and off? Keeping the PC right next to the monitor(s) so they can watch them go all shiny? Complaining when they are not provided in motherboards? Red and phosphorescent orange-colored cases? Colored fluids going up and down the cooling tubes, lol? Or the fact that we now have forty year olds playing with the toys of fiteen year olds?

Was a brand-agnostic, slippery slope man..
And we've long since gone down. Do not discriminate in this


----------



## Dethroy (Mar 8, 2017)

All Ryzen SKUs offer XFR. XFR works across 2 cores. X models boost by an additional 100MHz and non-X models boost by an additional 50MHz.

I haven't found any info regarding the Ryzen 7 1700's boost clocks when utilizing all 8 cores.  It would be nice if someone knew, 'cuz this is by far the most interesting Ryzen 7 SKU imho...


----------



## erocker (Mar 8, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> I'm not really convinced anyone has made a great gaming quad core yet.


I kinda have high hopes for Ryzen quad core. It's L3 cache won't need to be shared with 8 other threads and in theory it should help a lot... considering it's somewhat of a larger issue with 8 core Ryzen.


----------



## OneCool (Mar 8, 2017)

erocker said:


> I kinda have high hopes for Ryzen quad core. It's L3 cache won't need to be shared with 8 other threads and in theory it should help a lot... considering it's somewhat of a larger issue with 8 core Ryzen.



Same here and in theory you are right. Just hope it holds true. That and they can get the clock speed up.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Mar 8, 2017)

erocker said:


> I kinda have high hopes for Ryzen quad core. It's L3 cache won't need to be shared with 8 other threads and in theory it should help a lot... considering it's somewhat of a larger issue with 8 core Ryzen.


Sorry, I meant to say Octo core, that was a typo when I said quad, and now it's too late to edit my post. 

As far as their 1500X quad though, I was hoping it would be clocked more competitive with 7700K. It's obvious they are going more for price than speed though.


----------



## erocker (Mar 9, 2017)

I haven't seen it mentioned, is anyone able to disable cores on Ryzen 7?


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 9, 2017)

yeah but you really dont want to once you have one... it just feels... dirty.


----------



## OneCool (Mar 9, 2017)

It seems just disabling SMT and keeping the 8 real cores is the best bet.


----------



## ratirt (Mar 9, 2017)

Isn't the X with Ryzen stand for 95W and XFR? I would swear that was the thing AMD was talking about.
Anyway I can see a discussion here and I need to join in since I want Ryzen. I want it so bad that i'm willing to buy it just now. The thing is I have doubts. The cache latency is one of them. As someone said in previous posts maybe it is wise to wait for rev 2 of the Ryzen? Any rumors about that? Well I guess it is still to early. I mean the Ryzen (for me 1700X) is pretty decent CPU but......  Well I'm just confused. There's so many information and so many different approaches for this CPU that I just don't know what to do.
Also should I buy 1700x or 1700 or 1800x? If 1800x boosts to 4Ghz and so as other CPU's can(we saw the OC is kinda poor here) what's the point for going 1800x when the price tags difference on each of those is noticeable. On the other hand Ryzen are relatively cheap.
I really don't know what I should do. Also comparing 1800x to I7 6900 or 7700 Ryzen is doing quite OK for it's price tag.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 9, 2017)

erocker said:


> I haven't seen it mentioned, is anyone able to disable cores on Ryzen 7?



I'm assuming you can only disable whole CCX units?


----------



## Dethroy (Mar 9, 2017)

ratirt said:


> Isn't the X with Ryzen stand for 95W and XFR? I would swear that was the thing AMD was talking about.
> Anyway I can see a discussion here and I need to join in since I want Ryzen. I want it so bad that i'm willing to buy it just now. The thing is I have doubts. The cache latency is one of them. As someone said in previous posts maybe it is wise to wait for rev 2 of the Ryzen? Any rumors about that? Well I guess it is still to early. I mean the Ryzen (for me 1700X) is pretty decent CPU but......  Well I'm just confused. There's so many information and so many different approaches for this CPU that I just don't know what to do.
> Also should I buy 1700x or 1700 or 1800x? If 1800x boosts to 4Ghz and so as other CPU's can(we saw the OC is kinda poor here) what's the point for going 1800x when the price tags difference on each of those is noticeable. On the other hand Ryzen are relatively cheap.
> I really don't know what I should do. Also comparing 1800x to I7 6900 or 7700 Ryzen is doing quite OK for it's price tag.


The X denotes a higher TDP and a higher XFR boost (X:+100Mhz vs non-X:+50MHz). XFR works only across 2 cores. The R7 1700 has easily the best perf/$ ratio, but its lower TDP leads to bigger frame drops (lower min fps) because it cannot sustain its boost clocks as long as the X models without hitting its power limits. If that bothers you, the R7 1700X is the much better (read: reasonable) choice than the R7 1800X if perf/$ is of any concern to you.


----------



## ratirt (Mar 9, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> The X denotes a higher TDP and a higher XFR boost (X:+100Mhz vs non-X:+50MHz). XFR works only across 2 cores. The R7 1700 has easily the best perf/$ ratio, but its lower TDP leads to bigger frame drops (lower min fps) because it cannot sustain its boost clocks as long as the X models without hitting its power limits. If that bothers you, the R7 1700X is the much better (read: reasonable) choice than the R7 1800X if perf/$ is of any concern to you.


Fair enough. my pick was 1700x from start.  Although other stuff bothers me a bit. I guess I will wait for the 2nd revision. Hope it will come soon  Maybe Vega and Ryzen 2nd rev. will be played  I'd like that 

BTW Does the lower TDP really affect that min frame rate? Honestly I think that the GPU is responsible for the frame rates and CPU just keeps company and has to be strong enough to keep up with the GPU. For graphics, GPU is in the front row not CPU.


----------



## Dethroy (Mar 9, 2017)

ratirt said:


> BTW Does the lower TDP really affect that min frame rate? Honestly I think that the GPU is responsible for the frame rates and CPU just keeps company and has to be strong enough to keep up with the GPU. For graphics, GPU is in the front row not CPU.


Yes, the GPU is the bottleneck in most cases. But when you have a beefy GPU and you are playing less demanding games at 1,920x1,080, your CPU needs to be quick enough to feed your GPU or else you'll run into a CPU bottleneck (CPU bound scenario). This is clearly visible in the video I linked above and is also mentioned at *12m04s*. Other than that, if you plan on keeping the CPU for a long period of time, by the time you move on to a newer/better GPU, all of a sudden your CPU may start to become the weak link far more often instead.

So I'd say if you want to jump on the Ryzen train right now, and you aren't constrained by cooling options due to case dimensions (I'm looking at you _SFF mini-ITX cases_), then I'd say, spent that extra money on the R7 1700X, because that additional 70$ investment may as well be zilch considering how many years you may keep said processor.


----------



## ratirt (Mar 9, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> Yes, the GPU is the bottleneck in most cases. But when you have a beefy GPU and you are playing less demanding games at 1,920x1,080, your CPU needs to be quick enough to feed your GPU or else you'll run into a CPU bottleneck (CPU bound scenario). This is clearly visible in the video I linked above and is also mentioned at *12m04s*.


Yes I noticed that but this scenario doesn't apply to all games. Which was also said. Sometimes the 1700 was even faster than 1800X. This also depends on the game you play. Sometimes it matched the 1800X performance. Which kind of GPU they were using for the testing?


----------



## Dethroy (Mar 9, 2017)

ratirt said:


> Yes I noticed that but this scenario doesn't apply to all games. Which was also said. Sometimes the 1700 was even faster than 1800X. This also depends on the game you play. Sometimes it matched the 1800X performance. Which kind of GPU they were using for the testing?


As I said, it depends on the situation: game/benchmark being either CPU- or GPU-bound. That's why almost all benchmarks that are run at 2,560x1,440 or higher resolutions (read: more likely to run into a GPU bottleneck), show almost exactly the same framerates across most CPUs, because current generation GPUs aren't pushing enough FPS in said scenario except for a few exceptions.


----------



## Nokiron (Mar 9, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> 1. By "all" you mean all available 8 core 16 threads CPU's? Go on, check the 6900k overclocks. You'll be surprised where they start hitting the OC wall. It's around 4GHz. Going beyond that and you get stupid voltages and insane heat output.


Just a side note, I dont really agree with this. Asus stated in their OC-guide with Haswell-E that the following was the norm (5960X):

4.4Ghz at 1.3V was below average
4.5Ghz at 1.3V was average
4.6Ghz at 1.3V was above average

And regards to Broadwell-E (all models i presume in regards to their wording):







I mean, its pretty clear that Haswell-E has slightly better overclocking potential in relation to voltage but I would not call it stupid voltages. I mean sure, you will get some serious heat output but really, you are now pushing a 40%+ OC on 8-cores. You have to expect the cooling requirements.


----------



## Aenra (Mar 9, 2017)

Nokiron said:


> the following was the norm (5960X):
> 
> 4.5Ghz at 1.3V was average


Show me where you found that please.

edit: disregard this.. Stupid of me, confused 5960X with 6950X


----------



## Kanan (Mar 9, 2017)

What I meant with Rev 2 is only about its overclocking abilities. To make better use of Ryzen in games is up to Microsoft  (likely fixed soon) and the game devs (takes longer but will be done too). The problem is mainly on Microsoft, game devs only have to program more core/thread usage, but you have that already in many games anyway. So I expect the biggest problems to be fixed soon. 

If you overclock the Ryzen 1700 its TDP of 65W is of no consequence as OC effectively shuts it off. And with a Ryzen 1700 you want OC anyway because it's not really clocked for gaming otherwise.

That said, you can very well buy the Ryzen now and a 1700 too, but be aware that the CPU is still very new and it needs some time to be fully utilised, though I expect the biggest problems (that is windows scheduler) will be fixed very soon. This is based on what the software dev said in the video I already linked before.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Mar 9, 2017)

https://siliconlottery.com/ has binned Ryzen cpu's!

it seems that there is a pretty good chance that any ryzen 7 cpu will do 3.9GHz.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 9, 2017)

Below its own boost...


----------



## Kanan (Mar 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Below its own boost...


Boost isn't for all cores and not all the time, a 3.9GHz overclock is a overclock. Intended troll or simply no knowledge of how turbo works in CPU architectures of the last decade or so?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 9, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Boost isn't for all cores and not all the time, a 3.9GHz overclock is a overclock. Nice troll post btw.


I'm well aware how their boost and xfr works. You are not able to overclock all cores past their boost/xfr... that's sad.


----------



## Aenra (Mar 9, 2017)

Thanks for the link, had forgotten about SL. I'd buy that.. https://siliconlottery.com/collections/frontpage/products/1800x40g

30 bucks up, but a guaranteed 4.0Gigs 

edit: mobo depending, lol.. (yes, i'm still butthurt)


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 9, 2017)

Vario said:


> Zen+ should be 7nm also.



Dream on. 7nm is so far away, anyone who puts it on the roadmap before the year 2020 is a blatant liar, or an extreme optimist.

IF we see 7nm before 2020 it will be in the mobile space. Not x86.

@Kanan why always so serious, buddy? Relax


----------



## ratirt (Mar 9, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Dream on. 7nm is so far away, anyone who puts it on the roadmap before the year 2020 is a blatant liar, or an extreme optimist.
> 
> IF we see 7nm before 2020 it will be in the mobile space. Not x86.
> 
> @Kanan why always so serious, buddy? Relax


I can get a 14nm if they would improve things or 2 . and get better performance than now.


----------



## Dethroy (Mar 9, 2017)

Ryzen's launch is very polarizing indeed, but that shouldn't lead to forum members attacking each other personally. We can do better...


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 9, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Dream on. 7nm is so far away, anyone who puts it on the roadmap before the year 2020 is a blatant liar, or an extreme optimist.
> 
> IF we see 7nm before 2020 it will be in the mobile space. Not x86.
> 
> @Kanan why always so serious, buddy? Relax



It took ages for Intel and AMD to come to 14nm, depending on process, they might shrink it down to 10nm, but I think they'll just stick with 14nm for quite a while.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 9, 2017)

Some just don't or won't learn, if this mess does not calm down to something more civil from here on in things will get sporty real quick.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 9, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> It took ages for Intel and AMD to come to 14nm, depending on process, they might shrink it down to 10nm, but I think they'll just stick with 14nm for quite a while.


Gf will be on 7nm quite soon, but the 7nm Gf is talking about isn't the same as Intels 7nm it's rather comparable to the 10nm of Intel. 14nm of GF isn't quite as good as Intels 14nm too, but it's good enough I'd say.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 9, 2017)

Yeah, I know they measure things differently. Samsung also has their own measurement of nodes. Gets kinda confusing for average users who know a thing or two, but not enough to really understand it.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 9, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Yeah, I know they measure things differently. Samsung also has their own measurement of nodes. Gets kinda confusing for average users who know a thing or two, but not enough to really understand it.


Yeah I think it all started with 16/14nm ff stuff of Tsmc/GF to get weird.


----------



## Vario (Mar 9, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Dream on. 7nm is so far away, anyone who puts it on the roadmap before the year 2020 is a blatant liar, or an extreme optimist.
> 
> IF we see 7nm before 2020 it will be in the mobile space. Not x86.
> 
> @Kanan why always so serious, buddy? Relax



AMD claims the next revision of Zen is 7nm from Global Foundries.  Not a dream on my part.  Just repeating what the chip manufacturers are saying.  If it doesn't come to be true, frankly I don't give a shit because I plan to be on Ivy bridge another 5 years anyway at this rate.



> Dr. Lisa Su, AMD president and CEO
> 
> “The five-year amendment further strengthens our strategic manufacturing relationship with GLOBALFOUNDRIES while providing AMD with increased flexibility to build our high-performance product roadmap with additional foundries in the 14nm and 7nm technology nodes. Our goal is for AMD to have continued access to leading-edge foundry process technologies enabling us to build multiple generations of great products for years to come.”


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 9, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Dream on. 7nm is so far away, anyone who puts it on the roadmap before the year 2020 is a blatant liar, or an extreme optimist.
> 
> IF we see 7nm before 2020 it will be in the mobile space. Not x86.
> 
> @Kanan why always so serious, buddy? Relax



TSMC will start 7nm production this year http://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/7nm-tape-outs-tsmc-q2-2017-01/

Sure, not x86, nor is it "true" 7nm apparently, but hey...

GloFo's current 14nm is in the same boat as TSMC, it's more like Intel's 20nm, so their shrink from "14" to "7" is more like 20 to 14. In other words, they'll most likely deliver as promised, but it's a matter of what different companies call things...


----------



## ratirt (Mar 10, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> TSMC will start 7nm production this year http://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/7nm-tape-outs-tsmc-q2-2017-01/
> 
> Sure, not x86, nor is it "true" 7nm apparently, but hey...
> 
> GloFo's current 14nm is in the same boat as TSMC, it's more like Intel's 20nm, so their shrink from "14" to "7" is more like 20 to 14. In other words, they'll most likely deliver as promised, but it's a matter of what different companies call things...


I wouldn't be so sure about what you just said. Not all components in intel is 14/16nm but it's not that huge difference as you described. It's different shrinking process and some elements stay larger then others but still it's not that much different.
BTW. I kinda don't care if it's 14 or 7nm. for me it can be 22 but if it delivers twice as much performance as current CPU's with reasonable price tag and TDP I don't really care  Although I know those things come with shrinking process a bit. Well architecture also has a saying in it though.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 10, 2017)

ratirt said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about what you just said. Not all components in intel is 14/16nm but it's not that huge difference as you described. It's different shrinking process and some elements stay larger then others but still it's not that much different.
> BTW. I kinda don't care if it's 14 or 7nm. for me it can be 22 but if it delivers twice as much performance as current CPU's with reasonable price tag and TDP I don't really care  Although I know those things come with shrinking process a bit. Well architecture also has a saying in it though.



So if you're not sure, why did you point it out?

Does this help convince you?  Admittedly that's GloFo LPE, not LPP, but hey...


----------



## Kanan (Mar 10, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> So if you're not sure, why did you point it out?
> 
> Does this help convince you?  Admittedly that's GloFo LPE, not LPP, but hey...


Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. Seeing this again, 7mm Samsung should be equal to 10nm Intel or maybe a tad better, TSMCs node is still inferior to both and if they don't up their game the difference will increase too.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 11, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> Yes, the GPU is the bottleneck in most cases. But when you have a beefy GPU and you are playing less demanding games at 1,920x1,080, your CPU needs to be quick enough to feed your GPU or else you'll run into a CPU bottleneck (CPU bound scenario). This is clearly visible in the video I linked above and is also mentioned at *12m04s*. Other than that, if you plan on keeping the CPU for a long period of time, by the time you move on to a newer/better GPU, all of a sudden your CPU may start to become the weak link far more often instead.
> 
> So I'd say if you want to jump on the Ryzen train right now, and you aren't constrained by cooling options due to case dimensions (I'm looking at you _SFF mini-ITX cases_), then I'd say, spent that extra money on the R7 1700X, because that additional 70$ investment may as well be zilch considering how many years you may keep said processor.



I'D rather have a GPU bottleneck than cpu so that the cpu can keep that gpu fed.

Honestly though bottleneck is too easy a term to throw around and really shouldn't be worried about because all circuits have to deal with physical limitations anyway.


----------

