AMD Ryzen Clock and Turbo speeds query

[Melvis]

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]

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

 

[cadaveca]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 )

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[RejZoR]

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