Core i7 7900X OC to 6.01GHz

[xAcid9]

On 7/10/2017 at 2:35 PM, Master Disaster said:

Current frequency WR is

 

https://valid.x86.fr/lpza4n

But.. but.. The Stilt did it with all cores enabled altho slightly slower.

 

 

https://valid.x86.fr/vytt61

[MageTank]

3 hours ago, TheBeastPC said:

The core i9-7900X wont stand a chance against threadripper. And wouldn't be impossible to overclock a cpu on all 10 cores to 6.0 GHz.

Making a claim about a product that is currently available, being unable to stand against one which is unavailable, while providing zero evidence as to why such is the case. This is certainly an interesting way to revive a 2 week old thread.

 

Either way, I don't understand the second part of your statement. Are you saying the 7900X can get 6ghz on all 10 threads? Or are you saying it can't? The wording is tricky, given the sentence that precedes it. 

 

Either way, Threadripper will not clock nearly as high as the 7900X. While it will hold a multi-core advantage, it certainly "won't stand a chance" in single threaded workloads. It will be yet another example of picking the right tool for the job. 

[Dabombinable]

25 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

But.. but.. The Stilt did it with all cores enabled altho slightly slower.

 

 

https://valid.x86.fr/vytt61

And my Celerons only do 450MHz at 2V.....

[ARikozuM]

18 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

And my Celerons only do 450MHz at 2V.....

Probably still gets more frames, though...

[Lays]

32 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Making a claim about a product that is currently available, being unable to stand against one which is unavailable, while providing zero evidence as to why such is the case. This is certainly an interesting way to revive a 2 week old thread.

 

Either way, I don't understand the second part of your statement. Are you saying the 7900X can get 6ghz on all 10 threads? Or are you saying it can't? The wording is tricky, given the sentence that precedes it. 

 

Either way, Threadripper will not clock nearly as high as the 7900X. While it will hold a multi-core advantage, it certainly "won't stand a chance" in single threaded workloads. It will be yet another example of picking the right tool for the job. 

4 hours ago, TheBeastPC said:

The core i9-7900X wont stand a chance against threadripper. And wouldn't be impossible to overclock a cpu on all 10 cores to 6.0 GHz.

 

 

 

Meanwhile at splave's house

 

[MageTank]

Just now, Lays said:

 

 

 

Meanwhile at splave's house

 

On all 10 cores? I guess @TheBeastPC was right, it wouldn't be impossible to clock to 6ghz on all 10 cores. Still, 6.2ghz on all 10 cores, the lifting power has to be insane. Any benches done yet? Also, did he warn his city that he would need 1/10th of the entire power grid for a few minutes?

[Dabombinable]

3 minutes ago, Lays said:

 

 

 

Meanwhile at splave's house

 

Glad I wasn't drinking coffee, for a second I thought you typed "slave's" house.
 

Spoiler

 

[Lays]

3 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Glad I wasn't drinking coffee, for a second I thought you typed "slave's" house.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

4 minutes ago, MageTank said:

On all 10 cores? I guess @TheBeastPC was right, it wouldn't be impossible to clock to 6ghz on all 10 cores. Still, 6.2ghz on all 10 cores, the lifting power has to be insane. Any benches done yet? Also, did he warn his city that he would need 1/10th of the entire power grid for a few minutes?

meme.exe

 

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Making a claim about a product that is currently available, being unable to stand against one which is unavailable, while providing zero evidence as to why such is the case. This is certainly an interesting way to revive a 2 week old thread.

 

Either way, I don't understand the second part of your statement. Are you saying the 7900X can get 6ghz on all 10 threads? Or are you saying it can't? The wording is tricky, given the sentence that precedes it. 

 

Either way, Threadripper will not clock nearly as high as the 7900X. While it will hold a multi-core advantage, it certainly "won't stand a chance" in single threaded workloads. It will be yet another example of picking the right tool for the job. 

AMD has already conducted benchmarks with both threadripper CPU's and yes you are right about threadripper not doing well in single threaded workloads, but threadriper still takes the win for the milticore test on cinabench. I understand that threadripper isnt quite available yet for the conusmer market, but threadripper is definately a great competitor against the core i9-7900X. Well how come the new sylake X core i7-7820X features a non-soldered dye under the heatspreader, I have seen it exceed 90C when overclocked to 4.5GHz that was installed with an AIO liquid cooler. The reason why you can overlcock the core i9-7900X to 6.0GHz on all 10 cores is because your using better cooling, in this instance, liquid nitrogen.

 

If threadripper was overclocked to the same clock speed as the core i9-7900X with the same cooling, it would probably be identical.

[Lays]

2 minutes ago, TheBeastPC said:

AMD has already conducted benchmarks with both threadripper CPU's and yes you are right about threadripper not doing well in single threaded workloads, but threadriper still takes the win for the milticore test on cinabench. I understand that threadripper isnt quite available yet for the conusmer market, but threadripper is definately a great competitor against the core i9-7900X. Well how come the new sylake X core i7-7820X features a non-soldered dye under the heatspreader, I have seen it exceed 90C when overclocked to 4.5GHz that was installed with an AIO liquid cooler. The reason why you can overlcock the core i9-7900X to 6.0GHz on all 10 cores is because your using better cooling, in this instance, liquid nitrogen.

 

If threadripper was overclocked to the same clock speed as the core i9-7900X with the same cooling, it would probably be identical.

Didn't realize the measly 3.9-4.0 ghz that these threadripper chips can achieve are going to beat their competition when those can be overclocked to 4.4-4.8. Especially when they already are lacking in single thread performance in comparison, weird ain't it @MageTank

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Lays said:

Didn't realize the measly 3.9-4.0 ghz that these threadripper chips can achieve are going to beat their competition when those can be overclocked to 4.4-4.8.

3.9 to 4.0GHz isnt a measly clockspeed, I stated that if threadripper had a decent cooling system such as an AIO liquid cooler or a custom water loop, it would be able to obtain a higher clockspeed. I am saying that threadripper is better than the core i9-7900X because ti is cheaper when it comes to price to performance. Yes, you might think that threadripper has a measly clockspeed, but also consider the fact that the 1950X is the same price as the core i9-7900X and features an additional 6 more cores. I mean AMD could potentially release more models of threadripper in the future.

[Lays]

Just now, TheBeastPC said:

3.9 to 4.0GHz isnt a measly clockspeed, I stated that if threadripper had a decent cooling system such as an AIO liquid cooler or a custom water loop, it would be able to obtain a higher clockspeed. I am saying that threadripper is better than the core i9-7900X because ti is cheaper when it comes price ot performance. Yes, you might think that threadripper has a measly clockspeed, but also consider the fact that the 1950X is the same price as the core i9-7900X and features an additional 6 more cores. I mean AMD could potentially release more models of threadripper in the future.

It wouldn't be able to hit a higher clock speed, that is what Ryzen 1800x's hit, and threadripper is 2 1800x's.  The average OC for an 1800x is right around 3.9Ghz on the owner's club over on OCN, that was with lots of sample sizes.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Dbt_7FiD8hTo2uuOIKBE3ATCDRqVRpAHFsKnieEncv0/edit#gid=87938175 

Ryzen & threadripper have next to no overclocking headroom at all, which is completely different from Intel's offerings.   I'm not saying price to performance is good on the intel chips because it's not, but not everyone cares about price to performance, some want the best they can get, regardless of price.

[MageTank]

4 minutes ago, TheBeastPC said:

AMD has already conducted benchmarks with both threadripper CPU's and yes you are right about threadripper not doing well in single threaded workloads, but threadriper still takes the win for the milticore test on cinabench. I understand that threadripper isnt quite available yet for the conusmer market, but threadripper is definately a great competitor against the core i9-7900X. Well how come the new sylake X core i7-7820X features a non-soldered dye under the heatspreader, I have seen it exceed 90C when overclocked to 4.5GHz that was installed with an AIO liquid cooler. The reason why you can overlcock the core i9-7900X to 6.0GHz on all 10 cores is because your using better cooling, in this instance, liquid nitrogen.

 

If threadripper was overclocked to the same clock speed as the core i9-7900X with the same cooling, it would probably be identical.

First of all, never trust AMD's internal benchmarks, because conflict of interest is certainly real. Secondly, we are dealing with an MCM of the Ryzen 7. Meaning multiple Ryzen 7 dies on a single substrate. This means the limitations that plagued the normal Ryzen 7 dies (aside from maybe special binning to lower leakage/stabilize clocks) are still in place. This means it's reasonable to assume that threadripper will be limited to 3.8-4.1ghz. Yes, the die may be soldered, but with two times the dies involved, cooling is certainly going to be a challenge on these CPU's with just your standard AIO's. The same is said in regards to X299, in which your AIO's are a minimum requirement, and custom loops with large rads and pumps are recommended.

 

I also know that LN2 is involved when it comes to achieving 6ghz. LN2 was required to get the 1800X to 5.8ghz (the current Ryzen 7 world record) and that was on a special delidded 1800X that Der8auer used. The 1700X and 1700 both only hit 5.4ghz, and were not delidded like Der8auers. Since we are dealing with an MCM design with those very same dies, it's safe to assume they will not be clocking higher than that. 

 

Threadripper will appeal to those that need a cheap non-AVX workhorse, and that's it. Cheap is it's only real feature. 

 

9 minutes ago, Lays said:

Didn't realize the measly 3.9-4.0 ghz that these threadripper chips can achieve are going to beat their competition when those can be overclocked to 4.4-4.8. Especially when they already are lacking in single thread performance in comparison, weird ain't it @MageTank

It's not just single-thread performance they are lacking in. AVX is extremely crippled on Ryzen. As more and more people start to make use of AVX, it's importance will start to increase. This will likely cause threadripper to age dramatically in comparison to Intel's current X299 lineup (which supports twice as many AVX2 bit-ops/clock with AVX512F). This is all ignoring Ryzen's god-awful IMC, which is currently losing to even older DDR3 IMC's from Haswell. If AMD cannot tame that latency, they are in for a world of hurt. Their only saving grace on EPYC, is the extremely large rank/bank pools they were able to create with that massive 2TB of ram. Even that remains unseen. 

[done12many2]

5 minutes ago, TheBeastPC said:

3.9 to 4.0GHz isnt a measly clockspeed, I stated that if threadripper had a decent cooling system such as an AIO liquid cooler or a custom water loop, it would be able to obtain a higher clockspeed. I am saying that threadripper is better than the core i9-7900X because ti is cheaper when it comes to price to performance. Yes, you might think that threadripper has a measly clockspeed, but also consider the fact that the 1950X is the same price as the core i9-7900X and features an additional 6 more cores. I mean AMD could potentially release more models of threadripper in the future.

 

Regardless of any type of ambient cooling, you won't be getting a Ryzen or Threadripper CPU running any faster.  That's the wall until you go with some type of extreme cooling such as LN2 or the like.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Lays said:

It wouldn't be able to hit a higher clock speed, that is what Ryzen 1800x's hit, and threadripper is 2 1800x's.  The average OC for an 1800x is right around 3.9Ghz on the owner's club over on OCN, that was with lots of sample sizes.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Dbt_7FiD8hTo2uuOIKBE3ATCDRqVRpAHFsKnieEncv0/edit#gid=87938175 

Ryzen & threadripper have next to no overclocking headroom at all, which is completely different from Intel's offerings.   I'm not saying price to performance is good on the intel chips because it's not, but not everyone cares about price to performance, some want the best they can get, regardless of price.

I understand that threadripper cant obtain a higher clockpseed, but it is a cheaper but more affordable CPU.

[Lays]

Just now, TheBeastPC said:

I understand that threadripper cant obtain a higher clockpseed, but it is a cheaper but more affordable CPU.

That's literally the only thing it has going for it, is that it's cheap.

 

 

[done12many2]

19 minutes ago, TheBeastPC said:

If threadripper was overclocked to the same clock speed as the core i9-7900X with the same cooling, it would probably be identical.

2 minutes ago, TheBeastPC said:

I understand that threadripper cant obtain a higher clockpseed, but it is a cheaper but more affordable CPU.

 

 

If you understand, then why are you posting this stuff?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Lays said:

That's literally the only thing it has going for it, is that it's cheap.

 

 

Well, what about intel not soldering the dye under the heatspreader on the new skylake X core i7's.

[done12many2]

Just now, TheBeastPC said:

Well, what about intel not soldering the dye under the heatspreader on the new skylake X core i7's.

 

You do realize that people can look through your post history and can tell what you're doing?  

 

We can point out quite a few things wrong with Ryzen / Threadripper, but we're all better off focusing on the strengths than trying to highlight the others weaknesses.  

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, Lays said:

That's literally the only thing it has going for it, is that it's cheap.

That's not entirely accurate, it also has more PCIe lanes than X299 (when you account for the chipset lanes being limited to 4, effectively).

[Guest]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

You do realize that people can look through your post history and can tell what you're doing?  

 

We can point out quite a few things wrong with Ryzen / Threadripper, but we're all better off focusing on the strengths than trying to highlight the others weaknesses.  

Ok, I suppose then we are focusing on strengths of intel when it comes to the price to performance. I agree!

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, Lays said:

That's literally the only thing it has going for it, is that it's cheap.

 

 

Which, on the consumer platform, is amazing. However, enthusiasts tend to care less about price, and more about performance. It's why the platform itself has a premium to even get in. That premium exists in the price of the boards, the CPU's, and even the cooling solutions required to keep them cool. It's why you see people cheaping out on AIO's, complaining about X299. They tried to save a buck, and it's coming back to bite them.

 

Does this mean Threadripper shouldn't exist? No, I imagine there are content creators on a very strict budget, and need a cheap workhorse without having to resort to Engineering Sample Xeons on older boards that will find it very appealing. However, it's hard to label those people "enthusiasts" in the same regard.

 

1 minute ago, TheBeastPC said:

Well, what about intel not soldering the dye under the heatspreader on the new skylake X core i7's.

What about it? We've all complained about it, and shunned Intel for that practice. Are you considering a soldered die a "feature" for Ryzen? Because if you clock Intel to similar clock speeds, you will certainly achieve similar low thermals, which is the intention of using solder in the first place, is it not?

 

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

That's not entirely accurate, it also has more PCIe lanes than X299 (when you account for the chipset lanes being limited to 4, effectively).

That's probably the single biggest thing Threadripper has going for it. That, and the scalable interconnect. Had AMD provided a stronger IMC, I wouldn't even care about the core clock deficiency. 

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, TheBeastPC said:

Ok, I suppose then we are focusing on strengths of intel when it comes to the price to performance. I agree!

 

Hint.  Most people that buy x299 or any Intel Extreme platform don't place value as a top priority.  Usually they place performance first with value somewhere further down the line.  Pure performance is what some people want or need.  

[Guest]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

Hint.  Most people that buy x299 or any Intel Extreme platform don't place value as a top priority.  Usually they place performance first with value somewhere further down the line.  Pure performance is what some people want or need.  

Well, I guess there are different types of people who want raw performance and x299 is definately for the intel extreme platform. In terms of price to performance, the core i9-7900X would be a great CPU for gaming and content creation as it can be used for multiple different tasks. I guess that you need a CPU that can perform all of the tasks you want it to.

[done12many2]

Just now, TheBeastPC said:

Well, I guess there are different types of people who want raw performance and x299 is definately for the intel extreme platform. In terms of price to performance, the core i9-7900X would be a great CPU for gaming and content creation as it can be used for multiple different tasks. I guess that you need a CPU that can perform all of the tasks you want it to.

 

It really is a great chip.  Very strong single-threaded performance and pretty mind blowing multi-threaded performance for a 10 core.  It's one of those deals where you have to pay more to have both.

 

Threadripper is great in its own way.  Gobs of threads and loads of PCIe lanes for a reasonable price.