AMD's "X" Nomenclature on Upcoming Ryzen Chips Related To XFR Feature

[TheLaughingMan]

Actually I am not, you however are a different story

Course I know that see my second reply below Slizzos Quote.

I am only mentioning this because it would be a good feature for the IGP based units anyway since they are all on the same platform now.

Look at my current specs, never grabbed APUs or IGP based units, look at the quote above yours and you will see why.

Them being on one platform now makes this less likely and even less of a good option. The IGP can be turned off by installing a dedicated GPU now. That's it. Install, set to boot PCIe first, IGP never turns on so this is already a feature. Now it makes even less sense because the unified platform no longer limits your choices when a upgrade is possible. Now you can either just by an APU because you needed or wanted the IGP or just get a chip without one. Unlike before when you had to chose a platform and cut off the FX line as an option.

So since you are not clear. I don't think any of use understand WHY you want something that is already an option.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I really hope this isn't true and they don't do the same thing they are doing with their GPUs and putting a hard limit on the processor that it can't surpass no matter that the user does. This would be a pretty crappy way to suck and extra $70 out of customers.

You are joking , the competition limits overclocking on all but 3 chips.

 

[Raevenlord]

I really hope this isn't true and they don't do the same thing they are doing with their GPUs and putting a hard limit on the processor that it can't surpass no matter that the user does. This would be a pretty crappy way to suck and extra $70 out of customers.

A hard limit when it related to its automated boost, I wouldn't think AMD would shoot itself on the foot like that.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Well they were bragging about their AI auto overclocking based on your system's cooling potential. To me it so far sounds like heat dissipations and thermal throttling is the "hard limit". You want more out of the chip, improve the cooling. You don't know how? Give us $70 and get a better binned chip. Still not convinced? Get the X PRO and we will give you an AIO for better cooling.

 

[newtekie1]

You are joking , the competition limits overclocking on all but 3 chips.

I'm not talking about the competition. The competition makes it clear when you can and can't overclocking. They don't say you can overclock, then basically make it so you really can't. It would be crappie to release a processor, market it as unlocked and overclockable, then hard lock the power so you really can't overclocking it and have to pay $70 more for a higher power limit.

 

[GhostRyder]

So basically this is going to be similar to Nvidia Boost where if all the stars align on power, temp, etc, then you will get higher boost clocks for the chip.

Its a cool feature already, so having it on processors would definitely be a plus especially to those who are not big on overclocking themselves. Sounds like its just part of the binning process so the lower chips will just need more voltage and not be able to do this which is fine for the most part anyways as I am sure the difference is probably going to be (Max OC to Max OC) within 500mhz.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I'm not talking about the competition. The competition makes it clear when you can and can't overclocking. They don't say you can overclock, then basically make it so you really can't. It would be crappie to release a processor, market it as unlocked and overclockable, then hard lock the power so you really can't overclocking it and have to pay $70 more for a higher power limit.

Ok but that's exactly how GPU works now , I'd guess some oc will be possible just like my 480s go upto 1420 max and not beyond and the X versions will obviously have more Headroom, seams fair enough to me tbh.

A hard limit when it related to its automated boost, I wouldn't think AMD would shoot itself on the foot like that.

How so, everything has a finite limit how is it ok for Intel to have tdp locked by Sdp and Nvidia to limit its cards tdp but not AMD, they have made all CPUs more overclockable then Intel yet have a few X extreme parts for those wanting more while effectively warranting the worth of that purchases X tag.
All in great plan imho.

 

[Assimilator]

If unverified speculation by an anonymous user counts as "news" now, here's some more news for you:

Intel will launch a 10GHz CPU at some time in the future.

YOU READ IT ON TPU FIRST.

 

[newtekie1]

Ok but that's exactly how GPU works now , I'd guess some oc will be possible just like my 480s go upto 1420 max and not beyond and the X versions will obviously have more Headroom, seams fair enough to me tbh.

Really, so they put out GPUs with ridiculously low power limits, and change $70 more for nothing more than a higher power limit? No? It isn't exactly how GPUs work now then.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Really, so they put out GPUs with ridiculously low power limits, and change $70 more for nothing more than a higher power limit? No? It isn't exactly how GPUs work now then.

Sort of is though, Aib partners can then fit better cooling systems change the BIOS and stock clocks and add value. Not ridiculously low though.

They are both doing this to a degree in not fully clear on Nvidias methods but a chip has its limits but these days we can have a card that's not going to get to reach them since tdp temp load and power draw decide what clocks are running , Aes instructions for example strain CPUs hard and give more heat for a given clock then integer, running an fx has definitely made me aware that different loads Result in tragic looking temps on it ,5ghz easy gaming50℅ 4.4-4.6 66℅ folding.
So for me it Is needed no a necessity.

 

[newtekie1]

Sort of is though, Aib partners can then fit better cooling systems change the BIOS and stock clocks and add value.

They are both doing this to a degree in not fully clear on Nvidias methods but a chip has its limits but these days we can have a card that's not going to get to reach them since tdp temp load and power draw decide what clocks are running , Aes instructions for example strain CPUs hard and give more heat for a given clock then integer

Yes, but that is the AIB's not the chip makers themselves. Can you imagine if nVidia released two versions of the GTX1080 chip, the only difference between the two being that one is limited to 65w and therefor has basically no overclocking headroom? And they charged $70 more for the chip with the higher TDP? They'd be burned at the stake.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Yes, but that is the AIB's not the chip makers themselves. Can you imagine if nVidia released to versions of the GTX1080 chip, the only difference between the two being that one is limited to 65w and therefor has basically no overclocking headroom? And they charged $70 more for the chip with the higher TDP? They'd be burned at the stake.

They aren't the same chip ones got a 200 MHz clock bump , Intel charges plenty for that alone, and you can think what you like but your saying they don't bin for performance then limit each bin to a specific performance band ,they all do it's the same thing some swoon just as much as you do about performance about efficiency, I know I don't get it on TPU either.
It's the same as 8350 and it's "e" version or Intel's k to non k , what dya think the multiplier setting is really broken on non k and it couldn't have worked.

 

[newtekie1]

They aren't the same chip ones got a 200 MHz clock bump , Intel charges plenty for that alone, and you can think what you like but your saying they don't bin for performance then limit each bin to a specific performance band ,they all do it's the same thing some swoon just as much as you do about performance about efficiency, I know I don't get it on TPU either.
It's the same as 8350 and it's "e" version or Intel's k to non k , what dya think the multiplier setting is really broken on non k and it couldn't have worked.

You've completely missed the point. I don't care about the lower TDP. The 8350e has a lower TDP, but the user can override the TDP and overclock it just like a normal 8350. My issue is with the term "hard locked". If they will not allow you to go over the TDP, and are charging $70 more for that option, that is wrong. Especially when they are marketing the CPU as having an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

It isn't the same as the "e" version or Intel's K vs non-k processors at all.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

You've completely missed the point. I don't care about the lower TDP. The 8350e has a lower TDP, but the user can override the TDP and overclock it just like a normal 8350. My issue is with the term "hard locked". If they will not allow you to go over the TDP, and are charging $70 more for that option, that is wrong. Especially when they are marketing the CPU as having an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

It isn't the same as the "e" version or Intel's K vs non-k processors at all.

The e versions tdp is indeed locked , the same as every chip has a tdp it's only the control that's better.

 

[newtekie1]

The e versions tdp is indeed locked , the same as every chip has a tdp it's only the control that's better.

No, it is not locked. You can exceed the rated TDP by upping voltage and clock speed on the e chips. That is not a "hard locked" TDP. A hard locked TDP is like what we have with graphics cards these days. Where even if you increase the clock speed and the voltage, if you hit the power limit, you're settings will be overridden and the voltage and clock speed will be reduced to stay within the TDP. That does not happen with the e chips. If you set a voltage and a clock speed, the 8320e will run at those settings no matter what. The 8320e has just been shipped with lower clocks and voltages to keep the TDP down to 95w, it isn't a hard locked limit in any way.

 

[R-T-B]

"Automatically-overclocked"? That's an oxymoron. I mean I get it. XFR is a fancy new way to auto-control "turbo/boost" clock speeds. But "overclocking" it is not.

My editorial example to TPU was actually a piece dedicated to me ranting about how "GPU-boost" isn't overclocking, and hurts it overall for the same reason.

I don't think Wizz liked it and nor did I get the job.

 

[BiggieShady]

So like GPU boost tech, but charging extra for it? Interesting.

Charging extra for the binned chips that can actually boost significantly enough? Makes me wonder if tweaking boost on all chips past their TDP will be possible.

 

[basco]

consume with care!!
https://videocardz.com/65825/first-amd-ryzen-7-1700x-benchmarks-are-here

 

[TheLaughingMan]

consume with care!!
https://videocardz.com/65825/first-amd-ryzen-7-1700x-benchmarks-are-here

I hope this is real and AMD can once again say, "It realistically only depends clock speed and mine is less expensive."

 

[Vlada011]

I only hope to price of Intel Broadwell-EX drop and than buyers of X99 platform are equal with AMD. That would be fair. And I'm glad because we didn't waste money, we use this from 2014.
Our platform is 3 years old, that mean AMD is arround 2 years behind Intel.
From other side even 2014 I knew that investing in 4 core CPU is mistake, between small number of cores and good frequency and bigger number of core and small frequency my conlclusion was that 6 cores on 4.2-4.4GHz are better for investment. Customers had a great options only they didn't look better, I paid mine i7-5820K 280 euro exactly 6 months after launch.
But people who paid almost 400$ for i7-6700K/I7-7700K and now AMD is much stronger.... Price of i7 K should be 200$ long time ago. We have performance improvement from Sandy Bridge to Kaby Lake not much higher than 30%. Between them are few models with 5% improvements... Only idiot is not capable to destroy that with single generation if work long time on platform.
I WILL STAY LOYAL TO INTEL, THEY SERVE ME WELL MORE THAN 6-7 YEARS, AND WITH THEM I'M SECURE, ALWAYS GOOD PERFORMANCE, WITH AMD ARE ALWAYS SOME EXPECTATIONS AND YOU NEED TO LOOK BETWEEN LINES WHAT HAPPEN...
But upgrade from i7-5820K to i7-6900K would be great. AMD can't beat i7-6900K on same frequency... example 4.2GHz... No way.

 

[xorbe]

I WILL STAY LOYAL TO INTEL, THEY SERVE ME WELL

There's a dedicated intel sub-forum over at hardocp.

 

[medi01]

I don't get why AMD is messing with ridiculous TDP numbers.
On their own demo Intel's 145W rated chip consumed less than 10 watts more than their own 95W rated chip.

What's the deal with all those "95w" 8 cores and "65W" 6 cores? What's the point???

 

[TheLaughingMan]

I don't get why AMD is messing with ridiculous TDP numbers.
On their own demo Intel's 145W rated chip consumed less than 10 watts more than their own 95W rated chip.

What's the deal with all those "95w" 8 cores and "65W" 6 cores? What's the point???

TDP = THERMAL Design Power. It is about heat being generated by the chip, not power consumption. While I will admit the two often directly relate, that rating is now about power consumption. a 95W TDP means, at stock under normal use, the chip will generate a maximum of 95W or heat. It is suppose to help you determine the type of cooler you need. Thanks to most CPU coolers being over engineered, a lot of them stopped posting max dissipation in Watts because the average is somewhere close to 200 watts and largely unimportant.

So AMD is not saying the chips use less power (which as you point out is technically true), they are saying they run cooler or will take less to keep cool.

 

[xorbe]

TDP = THERMAL Design Power. It is about heat being generated by the chip, not power consumption. While I will admit the two often directly relate, that rating is now about power consumption. a 95W TDP means, at stock under normal use, the chip will generate a maximum of 95W or heat. It is suppose to help you determine the type of cooler you need. Thanks to most CPU coolers being over engineered, a lot of them stopped posting max dissipation in Watts because the average is somewhere close to 200 watts and largely unimportant.

So AMD is not saying the chips use less power (which as you point out is technically true), they are saying they run cooler or will take less to keep cool.

Are you trying to claim that 2 different chips that draw 95w of electricity would generate different amounts of heat ...

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

TDP = THERMAL Design Power. It is about heat being generated by the chip, not power consumption. While I will admit the two often directly relate, that rating is now about power consumption. a 95W TDP means, at stock under normal use, the chip will generate a maximum of 95W or heat. It is suppose to help you determine the type of cooler you need. Thanks to most CPU coolers being over engineered, a lot of them stopped posting max dissipation in Watts because the average is somewhere close to 200 watts and largely unimportant.

So AMD is not saying the chips use less power (which as you point out is technically true), they are saying they run cooler or will take less to keep cool.

No, it is not locked. You can exceed the rated TDP by upping voltage and clock speed on the e chips. That is not a "hard locked" TDP. A hard locked TDP is like what we have with graphics cards these days. Where even if you increase the clock speed and the voltage, if you hit the power limit, you're settings will be overridden and the voltage and clock speed will be reduced to stay within the TDP. That does not happen with the e chips. If you set a voltage and a clock speed, the 8320e will run at those settings no matter what. The 8320e has just been shipped with lower clocks and voltages to keep the TDP down to 95w, it isn't a hard locked limit in any way.

Just getting back to you see the attached post for an apt description of true Tdp , modern chip makers no longer use just that ,since previously only temp and clocks could be regulated and sensed so much more is now , the big three ALLL definitely limit voltages and control voltages within domains , some can be over ridden but internally the chip still monitors and regulates power per core and all have a max firmware set temperature max and power draw which also can possibly be tweaked with the right motherboard or GPU but regardless I've hit many a tdp it ended the same lately bsd CSD or shutdown depending a bit on type of chip.
All GPUs are volt limited all CPUs have limits too because as I said loads these days are very dynamic some give massive heat.
Due to the way shit works tdp can be an indicator of switching efficiency in chips and or rated leakage.
But it isn't the same anymore and it isn't just for AMD Intel made up Sdp to replace Tdp since by their reckoning a down clocked core might get within the reach of Arms efficiency and OEMs want that as do EU law.

Are you trying to claim that 2 different chips that draw 95w of electricity would generate different amounts of heat ...

Yeah definitely but the 95watts was not meant as power directly and only indirectly is now