AMD ramping up Ryzen flagship clockspeeds as we move closer to launch

[Humbug]

So as AMD moves along the road from engineering samples leading to finalized products the clockspeeds are being ramped up with each revision.

 

The 8-core 16 thread flagship summit ridge shown in August 2015 was run at 3.0Ghz (no boost) in a clock for clock comparison with Intel Broadwell E.

On December 13th AMD demoed a revision with base clockspeeds of 3.4Ghz, with no boost.

Currently at CES AMD is demoing revision 3 of the Ryzen flagship which is running at 3.6Ghz base and 3.9GHz boost.

Meanwhile French site canardPC confirmed the existence of revision 4 which is 3.6Ghz base and 4.0Ghz boost.

 

It will be interesting to see where the stock clock ends up, I don't expect it to go up too much further, but it already is healthy.

Once the final product spec is locked down it may be a bit higher still, but enthusiasts will also be hoping for decent overclock headroom.

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/229339/amd-ryzen-8-core-16-thread-cpu-es-now-run-at-3-6-ghz-base-3-9-ghz-boost

Quote

The folks at hardwareluxx managed to get some quality alone time with AMD's Ryzen demonstration boot at CES 2017, and it has to be said they used their time well. They managed to bring up Windows' System page, as well as its Device Manager, which seemingly confirmed that the Ryzen sample at use, though an engineering sample it was, was set at 3.6 GHz base clock with the capability to boost up to 3.9 GHz on a whim - up 200 MHz from the base clock speed of the sample used at AMD's New Horizon Event, where even at those speeds, the chip was shown beating an 8 core, 16 thread i7 6900K. You can see those clocks at the below screenshot, where "1D3601A2M88F3_39/36_N" (the code for the engineering sample Ryzen chip) makes it clear this is an F3 stepping processor, with the 39 referring to the boost clock, and the 36 referring to its base clock.

This goes right into AMD's claims of 3.4 GHz being the lowest frequency a Ryzen consumer processor would carry. It seems AMD is quickly galloping towards the finish line here, and as Lisa Su said at the New Horizon presentation, Ryzen chips can only improve until their promised launch, with an already rumored F4 stepping of the processor carrying a rounded-up, 4 GHz boost clock.

 

 

 

 

[captain cactus]

Also neat to know is that all Ryzen CPUs will be unlocked, but these are certainly nice base/boost clocks.

 

And this is the 8c/16t CPU. We'll probably see some higher boost clocks (4.1/4.2 or something) on the 6c/12t and 4c/8t Ryzen CPUs.

[Mr.Meerkat]

Ooooooooooo, so does that mean that we can throw the low clock speed argument out of the window?

[Humbug]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Ooooooooooo, so does that mean that we can throw the low clock speed argument out of the window?

Yes

 

But 4Ghz+ versions may slightly exceed originally planned 95 watt TDP... still more efficient than Intel though.

[raphidy]

Is that reliable though? Don't we usually check clockspeed in cpuz?

[3DOSH]

Btw he also confirms its not on par with Skylake in terms of single threaded performance, but in multi threaded work loads the 4 ghz boost one can get close to Intel's 6950x 10 core. 

 

[Mr.Meerkat]

5 minutes ago, raphidy said:

Is that reliable though? Don't we usually check clockspeed in cpuz?

The window's system specs thing is enough to prove the base clocks of a CPU  (assuming they're not messing with us)

[DELTAprime]

This still doesn't give me confidence that they will have a SKU that can outperform a 7700k @5ghz for gaming.

[captain cactus]

3 minutes ago, 3DOSH said:

Btw he also confirms its not on par with Skylake in terms of single threaded performance, but in multi threaded work loads the 4 ghz boost one can get close to Intel's 6950x 10 core. 

 

So it does give the 6900k/6850k/6800k a run for their money.

 

I like that.

[captain cactus]

1 minute ago, DELTAprime said:

This still doesn't give me confidence that they will have a SKU that can outperform a 7700k @5ghz for gaming.

Because they don't. Remember, Broadwell IPC, not Skylake IPC. Then again, a 4c/8t Ryzen CPU won't cost nearly as much as a 7700K. 

[Humbug]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

The window's system specs thing is enough to prove the base clocks of a CPU  (assuming they're not messing with us)

Well AMD didn't want them to bring that up, they brought it up and snapped the pic on the sly.

AMD probably has not decided on finalized clockspeeds yet, they are just ramping it up with each engineering sample revision.

[3DOSH]

5 minutes ago, DELTAprime said:

This still doesn't give me confidence that they will have a SKU that can outperform a 7700k @5ghz for gaming.

It well not in very heavy single threaded games,  but if you look at the  benchmarks for the latest games you well find that they scale pretty well with 4+ cores

Ex: watchdogs 2, battlefield 1

[Paragon_X]

12 minutes ago, raphidy said:

Is that reliable though? Don't we usually check clockspeed in cpuz?

I dont think CPU Z supports Zen As of yet.

[Humbug]

6 minutes ago, DELTAprime said:

This still doesn't give me confidence that they will have a SKU that can outperform a 7700k @5ghz for gaming.

I think at this point people are just happy to know that AMD is going to have a 4Ghz CPU with 40% better IPC than excavator.

Because that means in a real world gaming load you will no longer be able to tell the difference between Intel and AMD...

Sure You can do benchmarks and find small differences and split hairs but nothing detectable to the naked eye.

[3DOSH]

6 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

So it does give the 6900k/6850k/6800k a run for their money.

 

I like that.

Yep, all we need is bit of competition so prices go down and 6+ cores  become the mainstream. We have been stuck with 4 cores for 10 years for fuck sake. 

[DELTAprime]

1 minute ago, 3DOSH said:

It well not in very heavy single threaded games,  but if you look at the latests benchmarks for games you well find them working pretty well with 4+ cores

Ex: watchdogs 2, battlefield 1

I'm well aware that games are using multiple cores and threads. I've been pointing that out to people for a long time now. But 4C 8T is currently the sweet spot. BF1 is heavy on a 6700k, but not hampered by it. Watch Dogs 2 is just a poorly optimised mess and shouldn't be taken as serious instance of a game needing more cores.

[Paragon_X]

This is awesome news.

[raphidy]

I think if that chip could hit 4.0GHz+ 8c/16t with aio, it would interest lots of gamers wanting a nice balance between gaming and workstation workloads. We only have that with the x99 from intel and is very expensive.

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, 3DOSH said:

Yep, all we need is bit of competition so prices go down and 6+ cores  become the mainstream. We have been stuck with 4 cores for 10 years for fuck sake. 

To be fair, the 5820K for a long time costed the same as the inflated 6700K and it still costs about the same if you look around a bit. The biggest problem is how cheapest x99 motherboards are 2 times more expensive than the cheapest z170 motherboards but you can't blame intel for that...

[Paragon_X]

Also guys dont forget the boosting tech that is cooling dependant, with the present numbers i think we could see easily 4.5+ Ghz without even touching the CPUs. 

[JoaoPRSousa]

We can always overclock them so... What's the point?

[That Norwegian Guy]

12 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Because they don't. Remember, Broadwell IPC, not Skylake IPC. Then again, a 4c/8t Ryzen CPU won't cost nearly as much as a 7700K. 

Not even the 6c/12t will

 

4 core Zen = i3 pricing

6 core Zen = i5 pricing

8 core Zen = i7 pricing

 

Happy days - especially for Star Citizen players since they promised up to full utilization of 6 cores. Meaning that for i5 money you can get the optimal CPU in existence for the most cutting edge game on the planet.

[captain cactus]

1 minute ago, JoaoPRSousa said:

We can always overclock them so... What's the point?

People going for a budget build on a B350 motherboard. 4c/8t hitting 4.1GHz on stock is pretty neato.

[3DOSH]

13 minutes ago, DELTAprime said:

I'm well aware that games are using multiple cores and threads. I've been pointing that out to people for a long time now. But 4C 8T is currently the sweet spot. BF1 is heavy on a 6700k, but not hampered by it. Watch Dogs 2 is just a poorly optimised mess and shouldn't be taken as serious instance of a game needing more cores.

I dont know where you got the impression that watchdogs 2 is not optimized but still going back to your original point comparing it to 5 ghz OC is still unrealistic if you look at how many people overclock their systems. 

[TheRandomness]

17 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Because they don't. Remember, Broadwell IPC, not Skylake IPC.

There was a difference?