Ryzen XFR (Extended Frequency Range) 100 MHz extra???

[done12many2]

 

XFR kinda sucks.  I was definitely thinking it would do more than 100 MHz extra for high end cooling.

 

At least the multipliers are unlocked.  Looking forward to seeing what these CPUs do overclocked.

 

 

 

[Drak3]

From my impression, AMD's turbo boost is very much like Intel's, but more granular. That 4GHz boost number is probably only a single core, for a short duration, under load.

XFR on the other hand, is a mild self OC to all cores, of 4.1GHz, and may boost further, similar to Nvidia's GPU Boost 3.0.

 

Hope I'm right on that.

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

From my impression, AMD's turbo boost is very much like Intel's, but more granular. That 4GHz boost number is probably only a single core, for a short duration, under load.

XFR on the other hand, is a mild self OC to all cores, of 4.1GHz, and may boost further, similar to Nvidia's GPU Boost 3.0.

 

Hope I'm right on that.

 

Agreed.  I hope you're right on that.  

 

The thing that stood out was Linus' emphasis on 100 MHz   IF  you have proper cooling.  

 

While I don't think XFR itself is any indication of manual overclocking headroom, it would make you wonder why it's so low when AMD touted rewarding those with high end cooling solutions with more clock speed automatically.  I guess time will tell.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Agreed.  I hope you're right on that.  

 

The thing that stood out was Linus' emphasis on 100 MHz   IF  you have proper cooling.  

 

While I don't think XFR itself is any indication of manual overclocking headroom, it would make you wonder why it's so low when AMD touted rewarding those with high end cooling solutions with more clock speed automatically.  I guess time will tell.

AMD has quite a bit to lose. Ryzen fails, and almost guarantee that AMD fails the x86 market completely. They're going to err on the conservative side with these kinds of numbers. I mean, in one of their 'us v Intel' benches at the paper launch, the Intel machine has more RAM than the AMD, on benchmarks that could see a small benefit in that department.

[done12many2]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

AMD has quite a bit to lose. Ryzen fails, and almost guarantee that AMD fails the x86 market completely. They're going to err on the conservative side with these kinds of numbers. I mean, in one of their 'us v Intel' benches at the paper launch, the Intel machine has more RAM than the AMD, on benchmarks that could see a small benefit in that department.

 

We all win if they do well.  

 

I just happen to enjoy overclocking quite a bit, so that would be a big deal for me.

 

I'm not paying attention to any of the paper launch stuff as there's been a lot of smoking mirrors with quad channels running in dual and so forth.  I'm just looking for to seeing what they overclock like.  It would be great to see them follow the likes of the 5960x and other chips that commonly get in excess of 1000 extra MHz.

[Drak3]

8 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

smoking mirrors with quad channels running in dual and so forth.

They're running HEDT's in dual channel for the most fair, apples to apples comparison possible.

 

It'd be like comparing a Ford F250 vs a Dodge Ram 2500, just a normal drive, but giving the 2500 a 6.7 Turbo Diesel and the F250 a gasoline V8. Sure, there are scenarios where the diesel is more beneficial, but for what we need, it's just extra variation that can skew results.