AMD Ryzen Threadripper "Summit Ridge" Dies are Heavily Binned

[Doom2pro]

The article incorrectly states that low leakage (high binned) chips are easier to overclock, but if you talk to actual overclockers, they all pretty much agree that leaky chips overclock better because the transistors parasitic components are less effective at undermining the transistors switching speed.

This is why in GPU ASIC Quality, a higher ASIC quality (which has less leakage and lower power per clock) die has less overclock headroom because a higher ASIC quality means higher quality transistor means higher quality transistor parasitic properties which means more difficulty clocking higher.

 

[Hood]

Don't overclock and I bet they'll work.

Isn't that what Intel said about Kaby Lake? The difference is, KL OCs great, TR not so much.

 

[Frick]

Isn't that what Intel said about Kaby Lake? The difference is, KL OCs great, TR not so much.

I've literally no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[thesmokingman]

The article incorrectly states that low leakage (high binned) chips are easier to overclock, but if you talk to actual overclockers, they all pretty much agree that leaky chips overclock better because the transistors parasitic components are less effective at undermining the transistors switching speed.

This is why in GPU ASIC Quality, a higher ASIC quality (which has less leakage and lower power per clock) die has less overclock headroom because a higher ASIC quality means higher quality transistor means higher quality transistor parasitic properties which means more difficulty clocking higher.

It depends on the type of cooling. On ln2 you don't care about leakage so much due to the nature of subzero cooling but under normal to water lower leakage is better.

 

[Hood]

I've literally no idea what you are trying to say.

Intel said about Kaby Lake " if you're concerned about heat spikes, just don't overclock". But those who know about proper cooling are getting 5.0-5.2 GHz. AMD says "all our CPUs are unlocked, overclock them all you want" and people are getting 4.0 max. Draw your own conclusions about what this means.

 

[Frick]

Intel said about Kaby Lake " if you're concerned about heat spikes, just don't overclock". But those who know about proper cooling are getting 5.0-5.2 GHz. AMD says "all our CPUs are unlocked, overclock them all you want" and people are getting 4.0 max. Draw your own conclusions about what this means.

The conclusion is, as I said and as you state, that overclocking requires better cooling than running at stock speeds. The original statement was "and Arctic believe their tiny cooler can cool this" to which I responded "just don't overclock" and then ... I still don't understand your point. Intel CPUs overclock better? That sure is a fact. Is your point that a quad core Intel overclocks better than a 16 core AMD. Also a fact. But I don't see how they are related in the context of Arctic making a cooler maybe not capable of cooling an overclocked Threadripper CPU.

 

[XiGMAKiD]

That's an Epyc trilogy right there

 

[R-T-B]

AMD is weird.

I won't lie, I've always kinda felt like AMD was the weird kid on the playground who runs up to you with a grin on their face asking if they can "be your friend?"

And I won't lie, I was always the kind of sucker to fall for it only to find out later that he ate insects and that's why no one liked him.

I hope the real AMD is different.

 

[Hood]

The conclusion is, as I said and as you state, that overclocking requires better cooling than running at stock speeds. The original statement was "and Arctic believe their tiny cooler can cool this" to which I responded "just don't overclock" and then ... I still don't understand your point. Intel CPUs overclock better? That sure is a fact. Is your point that a quad core Intel overclocks better than a 16 core AMD. Also a fact. But I don't see how they are related in the context of Arctic making a cooler maybe not capable of cooling an overclocked Threadripper CPU.

I was thinking about the "big picture" the mindset of AMD, and some of their customers, and the very different way that Intel and their customers think. An AMD guy might brag about the money he's saving because he can "overclock" with a stock wraith cooler. An Intel guy would never even try to OC with a stock cooler, because his CPU actually has some headroom, with good cooling. The AMD guy gets 100 MHz and he's "an overclocker", complete with full bragging rights ad nauseam...By the way, don't ALL of Intel's recent chips overclock much better than AMD's? I just get tired of hearing all the blowhards whose idea of a "fact" is something he saw on Tom's Hardware or Legit Reviews or Linus Tech Tips, or Techspot, and anywhere else that suddenly has a rabid AMD bias.

 

[cadaveca]

I was thinking about the "big picture" the mindset of AMD, and some of their customers, and the very different way that Intel and their customers think. An AMD guy might brag about the money he's saving because he can "overclock" with a stock wraith cooler. An Intel guy would never even try to OC with a stock cooler, because his CPU actually has some headroom, with good cooling. The AMD guy gets 100 MHz and he's "an overclocker", complete with full bragging rights ad nauseam...By the way, don't ALL of Intel's recent chips overclock much better than AMD's? I just get tired of hearing all the blowhards whose idea of a "fact" is something he saw on Tom's Hardware or Legit Reviews or Linus Tech Tips, or Techspot, and anywhere else that suddenly has a rabid AMD bias.

Intel's CPUs don't "overclock" better than AMDs. Intel simply sells their CPUs with more overhead. AMD cannot do so and remain competitive. That's a distinct difference in quality of a product that necessitates the higher cost of Intel CPUs. They both do the same job, they are both made of silicon, but one, at it's actual maximums, does far more than the other.

Yeah, you could consider cost. But that's manufactured "value" set by the OEM, not actual value placed by users of the product.

 

[Hood]

Yeah, you could consider cost. But that's manufactured "value" set by the OEM, not actual value placed by users of the product.

You could consider cost, and I do, for systems I build for others, but for my personal rig, I want the best performance for my personal needs. Cost doesn't matter (I'll find the $), neither does "bragging rights", "moar cores", "moar PCIe lanes", or anything else I have no use for at present. IPC and single thread performance is what's important for the things I do on my machine. My 4790K is #3 on Passmark's single-thread chart, very close behind 7700K and 7740X, so even Intel's new CPUs don't tempt me. I'm not anti-AMD, I applaud their efforts. I wish I had a real need for 16 cores, so I could at least consider buying TR, but as I said, I'd find the cash If I decided Intel was MY better option anyway.