Which Ryzen to go for?

[phongle123]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

honestly is mostly luck of the draw. from what I've seen the there was a temperature reporting issue with the r7 1700x and 1800x so there is not a very good way to compare temps of each chip once they have all been oced. if you run any of the chips at 3.7 though you should have much lower temps as usually you have to increase the voltage quite a bit after 3.7 to run stably.

Yes, and increasing the voltage to a high point is my concern. Because at 4.2Ghz on my 5930k it only need 1.116v and it was stable, temperatures where almost the same as stock and heat difference felt in room increase went unnoticed. But once I ramped it up to 1.28v @4.5Ghz, whew I felt the heat wave within an hour. And the concern here is that, the Ryzen CPUs start somewhere around 1.2v already at stock and go up with turbo.

 

And the 5930k's stock voltage is only 1.08v.

[Brooksie359]

Just now, phongle123 said:

Yes, and increasing the voltage to a high point is my concern. Because at 4.2Ghz on my 5930k it only need 1.116v and it was stable, temperatures where almost the same as stock and heat difference felt in room increase went unnoticed. But once I ramped it up to 1.28v @4.5Ghz, whew I felt the heat wave within an hour. And the concern here is that, the Ryzen CPUs start somewhere around 1.2v already at stock and go up with turbo.

 

And the 5930k's stock voltage is only 1.08v.

you can get the r7 1700 to run on all cores at 3.7ghz on 1.875 voltage pretty easily so i would say getting 3.7 on all cores is super easy but once you go above that it really depends on the chip but most of the time you still have to increase the voltage quite a bit. some people have to increase the voltage to 1.35 some have to increase to more toward 1.4v but across teh board voltage requirements spike around 3.7ghz. 

[slashed_wings]

I do have a question here though, if heat is really such a big issue for you and from what your saying your room is fairly well insulated as the CPU is driving up temperatures wouldn't adding more ventilation to the room be a more cost effective solution to changing platform?

[NewAndy]

Better cooler=lower temps

Ryzen=better for streaming/editing

Intel=better at gaming atm (this might change, it's up to the game devs if they make their games favor for more cores or higher clock speed

overclock=better performance and more heat, a better cooler will remove the heat so just better performance

overclocked Ryzen=good idea

[i_build_nanosuits]

TDP and amount of heat dumped into your case/room has nothing to do.

If you take a ryzen 1700 and a 5930K they will push out about the same amount of heat because they consume about the same amount of energy...that's physics.

 

TDP is a mesure of thermal dissipation...more in line with ''how hard is the CPU to cool.'' but many factor will affect this...the fact that Ryzen is soldered to the IHS contribute greatly to it's low TDP...doesn't mean it will not consume A LOT more than  65W under load even though it has a ''65W TDP''

 

Also, AMD determined the TDP of Ryzen...so...take it for what it's worth (nothing)...put a 65W thermal dissipation solution on a ryzen 8 core and look at your temps skyrockets...

 

TL:DR -- > TDP these days...means Jackshit.

[Dylsmurf]

Put simply the average user doesn't need that much processing power. If you do, invest in a server and place it in another room....

 

Other than that, 1700 is the one that's really amazing for your needs*. They ALL overclock quite similarly (with-in ~100Mhz), the difference is just how far windows is willing to underclock them. My 1700 happily underclock to 1.5Ghz and parks all but 1c2t automatically when not in use, instantly boosting back up to 8c16t @ 3.9Ghz when required. This is all done automatically by Windows.

 

*I'm assuming you want something for moderate day-to-day use that can boost right up for rendering when required. If you're rendering very often, like I said originally, go for a server in another room instead. If any of my assumptions here are wrong feel free to reply correcting me and I'll provide more precise advice.

 

 

As with your question, a 140w CPU puts out 140w of thermal energy. Once you overclock (at those higher rates) this is easily closer to 200-220w TDP at max load. 200-220w TDP is around about equivalent to a ~250w heater sitting in your room, turned on to max 24/7. The 1700 can do the same multi threaded loads at around 95-100w TDP (3.9Ghz @ 1.35v).

 

 

[Dylsmurf]

1 hour ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Also, AMD determined the TDP of Ryzen...so...take it for what it's worth (nothing)...put a 65W thermal dissipation solution on a ryzen 8 core and look at your temps skyrockets...

 

TL:DR -- > TDP these days...means Jackshit.

TDP is calculated by maximum heat output under normal usage. Prime95 is NOT normal usage - it's designed to push your CPU to the absolute maximum amount of power it can pull.

 

As with your comment, I'm not sure this is true at all. A lot of reviews/etc are showing the power draw from the wall then complaining that it's drawing ~170w. Doesn't take rocket science to understand 170w from the wall is ~145w at 3.3, 5 and 12v (total). This equates to 50w for the motherboard, fans, pumps, RGB, SSDs/HDDs, etc if the CPU is 95w.

 

The 1700 shows around 135w at the wall. 135w is ~115w internally. Subtract 65w from 115 and you have the same ~50w offset yet again. Oh and yep, your motherboard does use a fair bit of power (20w+) - those heat sinks aren't there for nothing!

 

 

tl;dr: Total system draw - power supply efficiency - ~50w for other components = TDP.

Note there's factors of the efficiency of x370 vs Intel chipsets and other variables which play a part, but overall the numbers do add up and some tests actually show the exact power draw(s) from the 3.3, 5 and 12v rails rather than at the wall to further confirm this TDP.

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 hours ago, Dylsmurf said:

 

 

tl;dr: T

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

 

The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, is the maximum amount of heat generated by a computer chip or component (often the CPU or GPU) that the cooling system in a computer is designed to dissipate in typical operation. Rather than specifying CPU's real power dissipation, TDP serves as the nominal value for designing CPU cooling systems.^[1]

 

^{i suggest ou read the whole tihng btw...}

 

^{this is a 65W cooling solution:}

 

You will find this packed with a ''real'' 65W CPU such as an i5-7400 for example...

If you really think you'll be pulling 65W from the wall with an 8 core R7 1700 running at 3.8ghz on 16 threads...you lost the plot somewhere.

[phongle123]

8 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

TDP and amount of heat dumped into your case/room has nothing to do.

If you take a ryzen 1700 and a 5930K they will push out about the same amount of heat because they consume about the same amount of energy...that's physics.

 

TDP is a mesure of thermal dissipation...more in line with ''how hard is the CPU to cool.'' but many factor will affect this...the fact that Ryzen is soldered to the IHS contribute greatly to it's low TDP...doesn't mean it will not consume A LOT more than  65W under load even though it has a ''65W TDP''

 

Also, AMD determined the TDP of Ryzen...so...take it for what it's worth (nothing)...put a 65W thermal dissipation solution on a ryzen 8 core and look at your temps skyrockets...

 

TL:DR -- > TDP these days...means Jackshit.

Before this and before looking at CPU power consumption I thought that the TDP was for how much wattage the CPU itself was dissipating at stock speeds at load. After all these replies and the power consumption link I now know that's not the case.

So TDP is just a reference to look at and not something that actually impacts anything. So what really matters is how much wattage the CPU is using in total at load which a big part of it is dissipated as heat and which is why voltage is really the only major factor in the increased wattage then.

 

So I'm going to need to look at power consumption for each CPU and the lower 1 will dissipate the least amount of heat. With a stock power consumption, decent overclock consumption, and major overclock consumption.

[Dylsmurf]

On 3/18/2017 at 4:22 AM, i_build_nanosuits said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

 

The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, is the maximum amount of heat generated by a computer chip or component (often the CPU or GPU) that the cooling system in a computer is designed to dissipate in typical operation. Rather than specifying CPU's real power dissipation, TDP serves as the nominal value for designing CPU cooling systems.^[1]

 

^{i suggest ou read the whole tihng btw...}

 

^{this is a 65W cooling solution:}

 

You will find this packed with a ''real'' 65W CPU such as an i5-7400 for example...

If you really think you'll be pulling 65W from the wall with an 8 core R7 1700 running at 3.8ghz on 16 threads...you lost the plot somewhere.

 I'm not sure if you're trolling or just clueless, but I can re-explain...

 

You stated Ryzen CPUs don't meet their thermal targets, I assumed this is because you've misinterpreted reviews showing such CPUs pulling x watts from the wall. I've then included calculations in my above post as to why these amounts from the wall are perfectly normal and actually prove the chips are pulling around the correct amounts. I would assume the other components are actually using ~40w and the CPU is pulling around 10w over TDP, but this is due to Prime95 not being a nominal load.

As with the CPU cooler, the wraith spire is 95w - AMD says this straight up. The fact it keeps the CPU at ~47c at stock clocks shows it all, lol.

 

Here's their actual 65w: 

Note basically the same heatsink just with a larger fan.

 

 

As with my last post, if you're lazy, read the bloody tl;dr before replying...

 

tl;dr:

You claimed AMD Ryzen chips aren't meeting their TDPs correctly, reviews and tests show they are. If you want to understand how to read the test data, read full post + my last full post. Also AMD includes a 95w cooler for their 65w CPU, this is known. It's a generous inclusion for overclocking head room.

[PCGuy_5960]

8 minutes ago, Dylsmurf said:

You claimed AMD Ryzen chips aren't meeting their TDPs correctly, reviews and tests show they are.

Want to prove it? Link a review that shows a 1700 using 65W.

[PCGuy_5960]

On 3/17/2017 at 9:51 AM, phongle123 said:

So, I am not really that familiar with CPUs. But the first and foremost thing I want to state here is that, heat released to the room is the most important factor here.

Your 5930K doesn't use much more power than a Ryzen CPU...

On 3/17/2017 at 9:51 AM, phongle123 said:

So I want to find out which Ryzen would heat up the room the least, which would look to be the Ryzen 1700 which is only a 65W TDP, compared to 95W of the 1700x/1800x, compared to 140W of the 5930k.

It won't make a noticeable difference.

[Drak3]

On 3/17/2017 at 2:33 AM, phongle123 said:

So if the 1700 and 1700x are overclocked to match the 1800x's stock clocks. The heat released would be the same?

@Nimrodor

 

Overclocked, the 1700X will release more heat than the 1800X at the same speeds. The 1700, 1700X, and 1800X might be the same chip, clocked differently, but they're clocked differently due to thermal and power draw limitations. The 1700X draws too close to what the 1800X does, and puts out too much heat, at it's clock speed, to be a stock 1800X.

 

I'm not sure of the 1700, it might be as efficient as the 1800X, and only exists to establish options for multiple budgets and for weaker thermal solutions. It ,instead, might require more power to get the same speeds as the 1800X or 1700X.

16 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Want to prove it? Link a review that shows a 1700 using 65W.

TDP =/= Power draw. While they're related, they aren't the same.

 

Looking at Intel's HEDT 140W parts, they can draw something like 200W under load.

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

TDP =/= Power draw. While they're related, they aren't the same.

I know... This is what he said:

31 minutes ago, Dylsmurf said:

You claimed AMD Ryzen chips aren't meeting their TDPs correctly, reviews and tests show they are. 

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Looking at Intel's HEDT 140W parts, they can draw something like 200W under load.

True, but only when they are overclocked... At stock they draw 90W or something...

[Drak3]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

True, but only when they are overclocked... At stock they draw 90W or something...

No, not overclocked. At stock settings, an Intel HEDT (X99) processor can draw somewhere in the neighborhood of 200W under the same loads that Intel's 140W TDP is measured at.

[PCGuy_5960]

11 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, not overclocked. At stock settings, an Intel HEDT (X99) processor can draw somewhere in the neighborhood of 200W under the same loads that Intel's 140W TDP is measured at.

What? My 5820K draws 90W under load. (Or at least this is what HWMonitor reports)

[Drak3]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

What? My 5820K draws 90W under load. (Or at least this is what HWMonitor reports)

Software isn't always accurate.

 

Or, according to NZXT CAM, my RX 470 has a TDP of 0W.

 

Also, there are different types of load. 100% load with Realbench will not draw as much power and put out as much heat as Prime95.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 hour ago, Dylsmurf said:

 I'm not sure if you're trolling or just clueless, but I can re-explain...

 

who the fuck do you think you are son with your 12 posts?!

BRO...i don't need to read any of your garbage i don't need you to ''explain'' anything i linked to you what thermal design power is, go educate yourself.

[Spuriae]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

@Nimrodor

 

Overclocked, the 1700X will release more heat than the 1800X at the same speeds. The 1700, 1700X, and 1800X might be the same chip, clocked differently, but they're clocked differently due to thermal and power draw limitations. The 1700X draws too close to what the 1800X does, and puts out too much heat, at it's clock speed, to be a stock 1800X.

 

I'm not sure of the 1700, it might be as efficient as the 1800X, and only exists to establish options for multiple budgets and for weaker thermal solutions. It ,instead, might require more power to get the same speeds as the 1800X or 1700X.

TDP =/= Power draw. While they're related, they aren't the same.

Do you have sources for that? Everything I've seen implies that it's all up to the silicon lottery.

 

OC'd 1700X draws less power than stock 1800X

Spoiler

OC'd 1700X draws more power than 1800X

Spoiler

OC'd 1700 uses less power than 1800X

 

Can't find many more good comparison reviews, for example Guru3D's results can't be compared since they used different test setups for the 1700X and 1800X. 

 

Stock power draws look like they scale linearly with clocks (3.0-3.4-3.6 base, 3.7-unkown XFR frequency boost)

Spoiler

 

 

 

[suits]

Get a 7700k and delid it. You'll be running so cold you'll wish it would heat up the room more. (At least I do lol)

[GangstaRas]

On 3/17/2017 at 5:32 AM, slashed_wings said:

I do have a question here though, if heat is really such a big issue for you and from what your saying your room is fairly well insulated as the CPU is driving up temperatures wouldn't adding more ventilation to the room be a more cost effective solution to changing platform?

This
 

Idk but to me to change platform for a problem of room ventilation is frankly madness and a waste of money. Any chip you get is gonna push out heat that's gonna add up in the environment. The Ryzen chips may not heat the room as quickly but it's still gonna be a problem if you don't ventilate the room the PC is in

[Dylsmurf]

On 19/03/2017 at 5:08 AM, PCGuy_5960 said:

Want to prove it? Link a review that shows a 1700 using 65W.

According to a review someone linked earlier as proof they don't meet their TDPs (https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/03/08/amd-ryzen-7-1700-review/6), we have proof the 1700 does. Let's start by explaining efficency (in short form) - there's loss over the length of the PSU cable (around 2-5%, depending on length and if an extension is used, 2% in this calculation), there's power supply efficiency (approx 87% at these loads) and there's internal efficiency (dropping voltages to ~1.3-1.4v). In total, I'll be assuming a summarized 75% efficiency. If we subtract 25% of waste from 132 we're left with 99w for the complete system. Subtracting around 75w* leaves us with 24w for the MB, RAM, HDD/SSD, etc etc. More precisely, I think the R9 390 is using a lot of the idle power... lol

Off the same review the

Moving on from that review (there's so many flaws and variables), in other reviews, the 1800x is shown to use around 146w from the wall for content creation. This review used a power supply which is around 91% efficient at the same loads, and they don't throw in a random R9 390. The total draw after efficiency is ~115-120w, which is around 20-25w over TDP for the MB/etc. I would assume in reality it's using ~85w and the MB/etc closer to 30w. Note this is for nominal loads though, for Prime95 this may jump to ~110w for the CPU - as should be expected. (http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-processor-review,7.html) (http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,7.html) (http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1700_review,7.html)

*Note 75w is subtracted as TDP is calculated for maximum thermal output under nominal usage. Prime95 is ABSOLUTE MAX usage, not nominal in any way at all.
Also note some Intel chips use **lower** than TDP, though this is an entirely different matter.

tl;dr:
Ryzen 1700: ~65-75w content creation, ~75w Prime95 load
Ryzen 1700x: ~85-95w content creation, assumed ~110w Prime95
Ryzen 1800x: ~85-97w content creation, assumed ~115w Prime95.