Looks like Ryzen 5 OC as much as Ryzen 7

[WereCat]

I am sorry if this is retoast, also I was not sure if I should post this into Tech News or there. I think this subforum is better for this.

 

This guy got his hands on several Ryzen 5 1400 and 1600 CPUs and overclocked them (no benchmarks in this video, this is about overclocking).

I know that many people expected Ryzen 5 to OC better than the Ryzen 7 "because it has fewer cores", but it doesn't look like that is the case.

[Simon771]

Well R5 is just cut down version of R7, so no surprise there.

[vorticalbox]

1 minute ago, Simon771 said:

Well R5 is just cut down version of R7, so no surprise there.

Personally, I would just buy into the higher clocked chips so you know you have it rather than risk the lottery.

[PCGuy_5960]

It's Ryzen 7 with 2-4 fewer cores, so I am not surprised at all

[WereCat]

On 4/7/2017 at 11:16 AM, Simon771 said:

Well R5 is just cut down version of R7, so no surprise there.

I know, just crushing hopes of those people who believed that it will OC better. Personally, I don't care. $220 for R5 1600 6c/12t vs $220 for i5 4c/4t? That is enough of a reason for me to not care about the 3.9GHz-4GHz ceiling.

On 4/7/2017 at 11:18 AM, vorticalbox said:

Personally, I would just buy into the higher clocked chips so you know you have it rather than risk the lottery.

 

 

Yea, since the price difference with the R5 is not so big as with the R7 between the X CPUs, I agree.

[Bananasplit_00]

how did anyone expect it to clock better? less cores dosent make it automatically clock better, just look at the broadwell E chips, they all clock basically the same. the I3 7350K dosent clock better then the I7 7700K now does it? clocks is architecture based not core based mainly, the only thing less cores helps with is temperature and power draw total.

[WereCat]

7 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

how did anyone expect it to clock better? less cores dosent make it automatically clock better, just look at the broadwell E chips, they all clock basically the same. the I3 7350K dosent clock better then the I7 7700K now does it? clocks is architecture based not core based mainly, the only thing less cores helps with is temperature and power draw total.

 

Just look in any Ryzen 7 thread, there are so many people that believed the R5 will OC better. I just posted this to show it is not really so black and white.

[Bananasplit_00]

Just now, WereCat said:

Just look in any Ryzen 7 thread, there are so many people that believed the R5 will OC better. I just posted this to show it is not really so black and white.

wow. just wow... by that logic the I3 7350K is a 6GHz chip lol. anyway i can see the basic thinking that there is less stuff so it has to be easier to run and if there is less heat and power draw you can pump in more power but thats still not really how it works. Ryzen is a querky platform for overclocking to begin with too with RAM and baseclock playing a big roll and haveing to get a board with an external clock generator to touch the BCLK to begin with and so on. anyway i can see the necesety of this post to make people understand but still, i am a bit dissapointed in the logic of some people  

[tom_w141]

This is no surprise since people couldn't oc higher when disabling cores on the R7s. Also its what baffles me when people saying waiting for R5 benchmarks... You can (and a few channels have) simulate the R5s by disabling cores on the R7s.

[WereCat]

Just now, Bananasplit_00 said:

wow. just wow... by that logic the I3 7350K is a 6GHz chip lol. anyway i can see the basic thinking that there is less stuff so it has to be easier to run and if there is less heat and power draw you can pump in more power but thats still not really how it works. Ryzen is a querky platform for overclocking to begin with too with RAM and baseclock playing a big roll and haveing to get a board with an external clock generator to touch the BCLK to begin with and so on. anyway i can see the necesety of this post to make people understand but still, i am a bit dissapointed in the logic of some people  

 

I think that some people look at some OC records under LN2 and see that some record overclocks could be achieved only with one core, while with multiple cores the OC was done on a way lower frequency, but those are extreme examples under very different conditions and the CPUs behave in a lot different way under liquid nitrogen with extreme voltages where the actual power delivery is put to the test as well.

[Simon771]

32 minutes ago, WereCat said:

I know, just crushing hopes of those people who believed that it will OC better. Personally, I don't care. $220 for R5 1600 6c/12t vs $220 for i5 4c/4t? That is enough of a reason for me to not care about the 3.9GHz-4GHz ceiling.

Even if you get just 3,8GHz on all cores stable for that price, it's still amazing.

Just hope that games and programs will be optimised even further for using Ryzen.

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

42 minutes ago, WereCat said:

I know, just crushing hopes of those people who believed that it will OC better. Personally, I don't care. $220 for R5 1600 6c/12t vs $220 for i5 4c/4t? That is enough of a reason for me to not care about the 3.9GHz-4GHz ceiling.

The R5 1400 blows some i7s out of the water in some tests as well. (From that Santiago Youtuber that is benchmarking). The R5 is going to be a yuuuge success.

 

R5's will make any i5 obsolete.  (Except a i5 7600k at 5Ghz maybe)

[WereCat]

1 minute ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

The R5 1400 blows some i7s out of the water in some tests as well. (From that Santiago Youtuber that is benchmarking). The R5 is going to be a yuuuge success.

 

R5's will make any i5 obsolete.  

 

Will see, I haven't watched any benchmarks yet.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

i5ks and i7ks aren't going anywhere. The shear speeds that they can hit is hard to compete.

But these r5s will hit locked i5s and i7s the hardest. Its easier to oc on unlocked ryzen boards than doing it through the bclk for locked chips. 

This is really the only "disruptive move" that AMD has for Ryzen. 

[WereCat]

18 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

i5ks and i7ks aren't going anywhere. The shear speeds that they can hit is hard to compete.

But these r5s will hit locked i5s and i7s the hardest. Its easier to oc on unlocked ryzen boards than doing it through the bclk for locked chips. 

This is really the only "disruptive move" that AMD has for Ryzen. 

 

I agree that i7 will not go anywhere for a time being but I highly disagree with the i5, I see no reason for anyone to pick i5 even if it can hit 5GHz when you can have 6c/12t for the same price with similar IPC.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

I agree that i7 will not go anywhere for a time being but I highly disagree with the i5, I see no reason for anyone to pick i5 even if it can hit 5GHz when you can have 6c/12t for the same price with similar IPC.

 

5Ghz is quite tempting to some. Well I wouldn't go for it myself. 

[suits]

None of this surprises me. What I want to know is if the 1600x with a base clock of 3.6/4.0 boost. Will be able to get 4.3 or 4.4.

[DocSwag]

On 4/7/2017 at 11:37 AM, Bananasplit_00 said:

wow. just wow... by that logic the I3 7350K is a 6GHz chip lol. anyway i can see the basic thinking that there is less stuff so it has to be easier to run and if there is less heat and power draw you can pump in more power but thats still not really how it works. Ryzen is a querky platform for overclocking to begin with too with RAM and baseclock playing a big roll and haveing to get a board with an external clock generator to touch the BCLK to begin with and so on. anyway i can see the necesety of this post to make people understand but still, i am a bit dissapointed in the logic of some people  

If they're binned as high, due to less heat you usually can overclock higher. Just look at 6950x vs 6850k/6800k. It does actually happen.

 

Though it is possible that the r7 CPUs are binned whereas the X99 ones aren't really, explaining the difference.

 

I'm relatively certain that disabling some cores on an r7 CPU leads to higher OCs.

On 4/7/2017 at 2:34 PM, suits said:

None of this surprises me. What I want to know is if the 1600x with a base clock of 3.6/4.0 boost. Will be able to get 4.3 or 4.4.

Considering the 1800x was the same and could only reach 4.0/4.1 ghz, I doubt it.

[Carclis]

I mean it's the same exact silicon so people should have expected it to overclock the same.

[Paragon_X]

I believe the 1600/X is the sweet spot for Ryzen.