AMD Ryzen Clock and Turbo speeds query

[Melvis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Vya Domus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Kanan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[phanbuey]

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

 

[OneCool]

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

 

[ratirt]

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]

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]

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]

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.