Ryzen 2700X OCed to 4.3Ghz (1.4v) across all cores, performance numbers included.

[yian88]

typical amd, almost 1.5volts for that mild OC wouldnt take even if it were free, anything above ~1.3-ish is unrunnable, hopefully intel wakes up with  competitive 8core i5/i7 this year

[XenosTech]

18 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Both are bottlenecking CPUs.

Wonder if he knows bf1 or GTA V strongly disagrees with him about the 2500k being good in 2018

[Doobeedoo]

Yeah, more or less expected frequencies I guess. It's ok for a refresh per say. Expecting to see quite a larger jump with 7nm next year though. 

[GoldenLag]

23 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

With coffe lake being 6c and ice like, according to rumors, being 8c and consoles moving forward with multi-core x86 hardware this is the time it is literally around the corner. God bless AMD for forcing Intels hand.

 

And hey, if it comes to CS:GO g4560 is all you need.

Nah, all you need is an I-5 3210m ant intel 4000 series graphics. Should fill your 60 hz monitor just fine

[GoldenLag]

10 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Yeah, more or less expected frequencies I guess. It's ok for a refresh per say. Expecting to see quite a larger jump with 7nm next year though. 

Threadripper and Epyc is gonna be interesting at 7 nm. There is speculation that they will have a "cache core" for the shared cache and 4 dies surrounding it. Not needing to have chache in the core clusters will open up room for bigger core cluster with maybe 6-8 cores instead. Who knows, however 32 core in the prosumer market would be awsome. 

Edited April 9, 2018 by GoldenLag

[GoldenLag]

20 minutes ago, yian88 said:

typical amd, almost 1.5volts for that mild OC wouldnt take even if it were free, anything above ~1.3-ish is unrunnable, hopefully intel wakes up with  competitive 8core i5/i7 this year

I believe AMD stated that anything bellow 1,41 is considered okay voltages for Ryzen. Above that was life expectancy was expected to dimminish. I also hope Intel Kicks into gear and drops their prices and starts competing with AMD. If Intel doesnt start making core clusters soon, the only thing they will have is single core performance. And in a world soon dominated by multi-core. I dont see that lasting very long.

[Cookybiscuit]

 

28 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Both are bottlenecking CPUs.

Depends what GPU and what resolution.

 

11 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Wonder if he knows bf1 or GTA V strongly disagrees with him about the 2500k being good in 2018

It does the job, you're talking about a seven year old product still being relevant, in the tech industry that's an extremely long lifespan.

 

29 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

With coffe lake being 6c and ice like, according to rumors, being 8c and consoles moving forward with multi-core x86 hardware this is the time it is literally around the corner. God bless AMD for forcing Intels hand.

 

And hey, if it comes to CS:GO g4560 is all you need.

The PS3 came out in 2006 and had eight cores, "literally around the corner" would have been 2007-2008, why didn't it happen?

 

I guess if the 2500K isn't "good in 2018" neither is the 7700K.

[Linus_torvalds]

1 hour ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Ryzen is a disaster for single-threaded workloads.

 

LOL CS:GO? Funny kid.

 

AMD has better then haswell single core performance. It's IPC was core 2 duo levels. When buldozer came out it's cores had half of performance of intels cpus. Now it's much more then half of intels cpus. AMDs cpus have more performance/$ then intels. I do not even consider buying intel in the future. I am waiting for those budget, thin laptops with zen inside without dGPUs to buy. That's all i need as my main machine. I do not do gaming. I use arch linux as my only os.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

53 minutes ago, NelizMastr said:

 AMD came from Core 2 Duo IPC to basically Broadwell and that's called a disaster?

Not even. AMD came from Excavator, which had sizable IPC gains over Bulldozer (bigger than Broadwell to Sandy Bridge, if not even Skylake to Sandy Bridge). In turn, Bulldozer was roughly the same IPC as Phenom II. Phenom II was substantially faster than Core 2.

 

Basically, the last ballpark change in CPU IPC in the last decade or so was Core 2 to Sandy Bridge, and AMD just caught up with it. The remaining differences between current CPUs are much more nuanced.

[Cookybiscuit]

3 minutes ago, mate_mate91 said:

AMD has better then haswell single core performance. 

No it doesn't, and Haswell was five years ago.

[yian88]

8 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

I believe AMD stated that anything bellow 1,41 is considered okay voltages for Ryzen. Above that was life expectancy was expected to dimminish. I also hope Intel Kicks into gear and drops their prices and starts competing with AMD. If Intel doesnt start making core clusters soon, the only thing they will have is single core performance. And in a world soon dominated by multi-core. I dont see that lasting very long.

Cluster is only valid for high end workstation/server threadripper/epyc class cpu. For low end gaming/desktop home user 4-8 cores will be here for a long time, the tradeoff in Mhz to add 2 extra core to Ryzen(10 core) or i7(8core) would be too high 4-500mhz i would assume, both in max OC and rated default speeds, almost not worth it in games/daily tasks.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Ryzen is a disaster for single-threaded workloads.

1) Zen's issues in CS:GO has to do with the Source Engine doing a calculation in a way that adds latency on Zen. It's actually a bug.

2) The 8700k is faster than the 7700k, yet at stock it's behind the 7700k. Try harder not to look like a shill.

[Cookybiscuit]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

1) Zen's issues in CS:GO has to do with the Source Engine doing a calculation in a way that adds latency on Zen. It's actually a bug.

2) The 8700k is faster than the 7700k, yet at stock it's behind the 7700k. Try harder not to look like a shill.

Umm, look at the yellow bars, sweetie.

[jde3]

Back in the 90's... yes.. maybe before some of you were born. We had Netscape and IE, and they competed quite heavily.. IE 2, Netscape 4, trading blows back and back, until the saddest day on earth.. Netscape went bankrupt (moment of silence pause here). After Microsoft won.. they did.... nothing with the browser.. at all. IE 6 sat there king of the mountain for years while the remnants of Netscape started building their secret weapon Firefox.. And once they did.. Chrome joined the chorus and bam.. competition and innovation once again.

 

The moral of the story is IE 6 really sucked. Wait.. no that's not it. It's that if a single company ever wins then it is terrible for the consumer, competition drives innovation.

 

You can pity AMD all you want.. but thank god they exist. RIP Cyrix, 3dfx and Sun.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, jde3 said:

Back in the 90's... yes.. maybe before some of you were born. We had Netscape and IE, and they competed quite heavily.. IE 2, Netscape 4, trading blows back and back, until the saddest day on earth.. Netscape went bankrupt (moment of silence pause here). After Microsoft won.. they did.... nothing with the browser.. at all. IE 6 sat there king of the mountain for years while the remnants of Netscape started building their secret weapon Firefox.. And once it was.. Chrome joined the chorus and bam.. competition and innovation once again.

 

The moral of the story is IE 6 really sucked. Wait.. no that's not it. It's that if a single company ever wins then it is terrible for the consumer, competition drives innovation.

Also the reason why Intel have released more new cores in the last 2 years than they had in the previous 10(?), AMD simply weren't competing so Intel had no reason to move beyond 4 cores and they simply sat on ass.

 

AMD drop Zen and suddenly Intel drop 6 cores and are rumored to be dropped 8 cores this year.

[Cookybiscuit]

Just now, huilun02 said:

Have a 1080ti or Titan XP

Plays undemanding game on old engine at 1080p

Worries about the extra frames his monitor is unable to display

If that sounds like you then yeah, go ahead get the arbitrary Intel CPU

"What are minimum framerates and what is a 144Hz monitor?"

[SamovarGolden]

Someone on Russian forums made it to over 4500 mhz: https://forums.overclockers.ru/viewtopic.php?p=15499300#p15499300

 

Here is validation from cpu-z: https://valid.x86.fr/1sqcwt

 

Cinebench r15 score: 186/2004

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

Ive got a feeling that some Golden Samples might reach 4,4 ghz or mabve even 4,45 ghz. Similar to Ryzen 1000 series. Most chips stopped at 4-4,1 however some have reached 4,2 using "okay" voltages. Overall. Not the major generational jump i was hoping. 

 

Edit: i know there wasnt much change since last gen. However i had hopes for 12 nm to really help.

4.1 on the Ryzen CPUs was an utterly golden chip. There's a few 4.2s in the wild, but they're insanely rare. Most chips actually topped out at 3.9 Ghz. 4.0 is common, but less than 50% seemed to reach that. (Some of that, though, seems to be more motherboard issues for a lot of people.)

 

The big thing is going to be All-Core speeds at stock. 1800X at stock was 3.7 Ghz all-core. The 2700X looks to be 4.1 Ghz + XFR2 can up the clocks as well (on the X470 boards, more than likely). The real power of the 1600 was you could overlock it by upwards of 20% with ease. So part of the generational improvement just comes down to moving those from OC to Stock. This looks to be a far larger improvement than Skylake -> Kaby Lake, but it's no where close to the legendary Excavator -> Zen change. (Cache changes are going to be valuable on the gaming side when we get there. Those don't effect things like Cinebench much at all.)

[Taf the Ghost]

11 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Umm, look at the yellow bars, sweetie.

Again. Try harder not to look like a Shill.

[Doobeedoo]

34 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Threadripper and Epyc is gonna be interesting at 7 nm. There is speculation that they will have a "cache core" for the shared cache and 4 dies surrounding it. Not needing to have chache in the core clusters will open up room for bigger core cluster with maybe 6-8 cores instead. Who knows, however 32 core in the prosumer market would be awsome. 

Yeah maybe more cores per die, we'll see though.

[hobobobo]

27 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

The PS3 came out in 2006 and had eight cores, "literally around the corner" would have been 2007-2008, why didn't it happen?

PS3 had a clusterfuck of an architecture, with each core being specialized and was a nightmare to code for. PS4 and XBone are the first x86 consoles and its more or less confirmed that the next gen and the one after it will all be x86. PS4 is ~4 years old and around 3 years ago more and more games started using 4 cores.

[asus killer]

for a minute i thought i had made a mistake and was logged to my reddit account 

 

fan wars are so much fun

[Cookybiscuit]

4 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Again. Try harder not to look like a Shill.

Solid counter argument, you've succinctly proven that minimum framerates don't matter, you win the debate.

[Minorika]

9 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Solid counter argument, you've succinctly proven that minimum framerates don't matter, you win the debate.

But minimums dont have to be above the monitors refresh rate right?

Thats why G-sync and freesync exist.

 

I think...

[jde3]

This guy also btw..

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Keller_(engineer)

 

Oh he just sat down one day and created 2 of the best AMD cpu's ever, changed the entire computing industry and invented x86_64.. no big deal. Oh ya he prob also ended Moores law.