Core i7 7900X OC to 6.01GHz

[DXMember]

On ‎2017‎.‎07‎.‎10‎. at 4:45 AM, TheRandomness said:

Doesn't necessarily mean the mosfets can handle it

Ummm... Gigabyte SOC Champion? Hello? If there's anything to go by... SOC Champion boards regularly post world records with extreme overclocking

 

[JoeCoke]

On Sunday, July 09, 2017 at 9:43 PM, BuckGup said:

AMD still holds the win with over 8Ghz

Yeah, with FX iirc... Can we even count that?

[Bananasplit_00]

On 10/07/2017 at 3:45 AM, TheRandomness said:

Doesn't necessarily mean the mosfets can handle it

But this is a 10 core, not an 8 core (with pathetic IPC). 

But clock speed though!!! *amd fanboyism intensifies*

 

On 10/07/2017 at 3:57 AM, Lays said:

With ancient 83xx series cpu's, this 10 core runs circles around that 83xx 8 + ghz part lol

Or the AM3 Semproms, they can go there too iirc. 

[Bananasplit_00]

On 10/07/2017 at 10:03 AM, snpr1992 said:

That is quite a ridiculous overclock.  His setup on a test bench is crazy as well, a hair dryer?  If you haven't seen it, you should take a look.

  Hide contents

 

 

Craziest part is the temp probe at -110.1 C and that there are other builds, multi processor Xeons to be exact, on air that beat his numbers. Top 10 List

 

This is a pretty basic LN2 setup, nothing special. Not even a butane torch. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, done12many2 said:

 

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.  

Well threadripper does contain additional features that the core i9-7900X doesnt have. So, an extreme amount of threads (as it comes from the name "threadripper"), and heaps of PCIE lanes, threadripper is definately an alternative budget orientated CPU for the consumer market who in which want something that can handle single and milti threaded performance with different applications. AMD is definately a good alternative when it comes to price to performance and people who are on a budget.

[Bananasplit_00]

4 hours ago, Lays said:

 

meme.exe

 

Damn that's a good score. *cries in 700 points*

[MageTank]

2 minutes ago, TheBeastPC said:

Well threadripper does contain additional features that the core i9-7900X doesnt have. So, an extreme amount of threads (as it comes from the name "threadripper"), and heaps of PCIE lanes, threadripper is definately an alternative budget orientated CPU for the consumer market who in which want something that can handle single and milti threaded performance with different applications. AMD is definately a good alternative when it comes to price to performance and people who are on a budget.

You are not only repeating exactly what he said to you, you are also repeating it twice in your own post. What additional "features" does TR contain that the 7900X doesn't have, that has not been discussed in this thread? We already mentioned the solder, PCIe lanes, and faster interconnect (infinity fabric), what else exists? It's also not a "budget oriented CPU for the consumer market". It's aimed at the enthusiast/content creation market. It's also priced within that market segment. It may be cheaper than Intel's similar market options, but it does not change the market in which it intends to compete.

 

People seem to forget that if threadripper (or Ryzen in general) was priced at exactly the same price as Intel, that nobody would even be considering it. It's main appeal is it's price. That's not a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either. AMD has some serious work to do if they want to capitalize on this recent adoption of their CPU's. Zen 2.0 needs a serious IMC, it needs stronger silicon with higher clock tolerance, and in doing so, it needs to be slightly more expensive as a result. I already know this last part will anger a lot of people, but they need the funding for R&D, and I can't imagine they are making enough overhead on these CPU's to properly push their CPU development far enough. By providing more performance, they can get away with charging more money on the next go around. I'd certainly pay an extra $100 premium on a Ryzen SKU with an even better IMC and better overclock tolerances. I am sure others would as well. 

 

AMD will not survive if they stay on the defensive, and continue to exist simply as the "cheaper alternative". Until they actually come back to take the performance crown, they are going to end up in Intel's shadow, regardless of how great their price:performance is. At the end of the day, price:performance isn't the be all, end all for every market segment, especially those that actually bring in the big bucks (HPC being where most of these companies revenue stems from). 

[ScratchCat]

21 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

 

Or the AM3 Semproms, they can go there too iirc. 

Now that is a Brand I haven't heard for a long time.

 

[Bananasplit_00]

5 minutes ago, ScratchCat said:

Now that is a Brand I haven't heard for a long time.

 

They still sell them for $26 new here.. At least that's a dual core instead of single core like they used to be 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, MageTank said:

You are not only repeating exactly what he said to you, you are also repeating it twice in your own post. What additional "features" does TR contain that the 7900X doesn't have, that has not been discussed in this thread? We already mentioned the solder, PCIe lanes, and faster interconnect (infinity fabric), what else exists? It's also not a "budget oriented CPU for the consumer market". It's aimed at the enthusiast/content creation market. It's also priced within that market segment. It may be cheaper than Intel's similar market options, but it does not change the market in which it intends to compete.

 

People seem to forget that if threadripper (or Ryzen in general) was priced at exactly the same price as Intel, that nobody would even be considering it. It's main appeal is it's price. That's not a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either. AMD has some serious work to do if they want to capitalize on this recent adoption of their CPU's. Zen 2.0 needs a serious IMC, it needs stronger silicon with higher clock tolerance, and in doing so, it needs to be slightly more expensive as a result. I already know this last part will anger a lot of people, but they need the funding for R&D, and I can't imagine they are making enough overhead on these CPU's to properly push their CPU development far enough. By providing more performance, they can get away with charging more money on the next go around. I'd certainly pay an extra $100 premium on a Ryzen SKU with an even better IMC and better overclock tolerances. I am sure others would as well. 

 

AMD will not survive if they stay on the defensive, and continue to exist simply as the "cheaper alternative". Until they actually come back to take the performance crown, they are going to end up in Intel's shadow, regardless of how great their price:performance is. At the end of the day, price:performance isn't the be all, end all for every market segment, especially those that actually bring in the big bucks (HPC being where most of these companies revenue stems from). 

I agree with you that threadripper is directly aimed at enthusiasts and content creators who need a lot of processing power. Sorry for the misconception and I will ensure not to repeat any additional information that I have previously posted on this thread.

[MageTank]

11 minutes ago, TheBeastPC said:

I agree with you that this threadripper is directly aimed at enthusiasts and content creators who need a lot of processing power. Sorry for the misconception!

Sorry if I am coming off as anti AMD here, as I am certainly not (I loved my 8320 despite it's flaws, and I have a Ryzen 1600 that I am using to study it's memory controller, and it's experience has been amazing for the price). I wish to see AMD succeed as much as their diehard fans, despite me not being a fanboy for either side. When both sides do good, and are extra competitive with each other, the consumer wins. We either get faster hardware sooner, or we get extremely competitive pricing/deals to earn our dollar. 

 

Seeing AMD be in this situation not only on the CPU side of things, but also on the GPU side of things, has me worried that they may not get out of this hole. Being the cheaper option certainly gives them appeal for most normal consumers, it comes at a cost of not making enough overhead to further fund R&D to improve the product and once again earn customers money once the next iteration of products come around. Stagnation is a very real threat to any product manufacturer, and that is exactly where we are heading with Ryzen if they cannot improve upon their product, while also profiting enough to continue to do so. Luckily, they've taken quite a few good steps to make that happen. The Infinity Fabric (just like Hypertransport that preceded it) is a very powerful interconnect, with the added feature of great scalability. Going with an MCM design on Threadripper and EPYC means they can keep yields high, and can even allow for better clock scaling as more and more cores are provided (meaning by using 4x Ryzen 7 dies that are able to hit 4ghz, you have a real chance to run all 64 EPYC threads at 4ghz assuming you can keep such a monstrosity cool and provide enough power/current to maintain such a speed). While the lack of AVX might hurt them in the HPC segment in the long term, their cheaper pricing combined with the aforementioned MCM boons just might allow enough of an adoption to get them enough overhead to further improve upon the product.

 

Before others remind me, yes, I know AMD has investors and loans and other sources of income that pay for their R&D, they still need to profit in order to maintain those ties. TL:DR? While we might be enjoying AMD's cheaper prices as consumers, it's technically in our best interest for them to provide better performing products, at a slightly higher cost. Price:Performance can still be superior even at a higher price, as long as they provide enough of a performance boost to justify the boost in price. 

[Coaxialgamer]

well ,the fx record was achieved with only 1 core enabled...

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Sorry if I am coming off as anti AMD here, as I am certainly not (I loved my 8320 despite it's flaws, and I have a Ryzen 1600 that I am using to study it's memory controller, and it's experience has been amazing for the price). I wish to see AMD succeed as much as their diehard fans, despite me not being a fanboy for either side. When both sides do good, and are extra competitive with each other, the consumer wins. We either get faster hardware sooner, or we get extremely competitive pricing/deals to earn our dollar. 

 

Seeing AMD be in this situation not only on the CPU side of things, but also on the GPU side of things, has me worried that they may not get out of this hole. Being the cheaper option certainly gives them appeal for most normal consumers, it comes at a cost of not making enough overhead to further fund R&D to improve the product and once again earn customers money once the next iteration of products come around. Stagnation is a very real threat to any product manufacturer, and that is exactly where we are heading with Ryzen if they cannot improve upon their product, while also profiting enough to continue to do so. Luckily, they've taken quite a few good steps to make that happen. The Infinity Fabric (just like Hypertransport that preceded it) is a very powerful interconnect, with the added feature of great scalability. Going with an MCM design on Threadripper and EPYC means they can keep yields high, and can even allow for better clock scaling as more and more cores are provided (meaning by using 4x Ryzen 7 dies that are able to hit 4ghz, you have a real chance to run all 64 EPYC threads at 4ghz assuming you can keep such a monstrosity cool and provide enough power/current to maintain such a speed). While the lack of AVX might hurt them in the HPC segment in the short term, their cheaper pricing combined with the aforementioned MCM boons just might allow enough of an adoption to get them enough overhead to further improve upon the product.

 

Before others remind me, yes, I know AMD has investors and loans and other sources of income that pay for their R&D, they still need to profit in order to maintain those ties. TL:DR? While we might be enjoying AMD's cheaper prices as consumers, it's technically in our best interest for them to provide better performing products, at a slightly higher cost. Price:Performance can still be superior even at a higher price, as long as they provide enough of a performance boost to justify the boost in price. 

With the exception of intels pricing, the core i9 CPU lineup does improve in terms of pricing to performance because they are better quality products. The higher the price of something, the more performance you will expect from it. I am not saying AMD is bad in anyway, but intel is sure manufacturing CPU's with tones more performance included with the price. As far as the consumer market goes in terms of the pricing of CPU's, I guess that you get what you pay for whether its for a highend processor that includes lots of features and has lots of performance or a low end processor with minimal features and performance. The low cost of threadripper will certainly have a benefit for AMD in terms of sales, but since intel is producing more highend processors that have lots more performance, there will be an advantage for intel since they are targeting their processors at highend enthusiasts who need performance. And it comes down to, do you want lots of performance for paying more or do you want very little performance for paying less.

[Guest]

Why dont we say that AMD and intel are great CPU manufactures who are great competitors in the consumer market when it comes to gaming, content creation/video editing, server hardware and lots more. Intel and AMD both provide CPU's in which are targeted at different people in the consumer market, whether its the low end or the high end, both companies deliver great performance in terms of these two categories.

[MageTank]

Just now, TheBeastPC said:

With the exception of intels pricing, the core i9 CPU lineup does improve in terms of pricing to performance because they are better quality products. The higher the price of something, the more performance you will expect from it. I am not saying AMD is bad in anyway, but intel is sure manufacturing CPU's with tones more performance included with the price. As far as the consumer market goes in terms of the pricing of CPU's, I guess that you get what you pay for whether its for a highend processor that includes lots of features and has lots of performance or a low end processor with minimal features and performance. The low cost of threadripper will certainly have a benefit for AMD in terms of sales, but since intel is producing more highend processors that have lots more performance, there will be an advantage for intel since they are targeting their processors at highend enthusiasts who need performance. And it comes down to, do you want lots of performance for paying more or do you want very little performance for paying less.

I don't understand this sentence. "With the exception of their pricing", followed by a statement regarding their price:performance improving? Are we speaking in a relative sense? If so, relative to what? Just their previous products, or all CPU's in general? Understand, price:performance depends heavily on what you intend to use the product for. From a strictly gaming standpoint, the 7700k's price:performance absolutely destroys every Skylake-X CPU. However, that title might go to a much cheaper Ryzen 3 or Ryzen 5 CPU when making a comparison to gaming alone. Whenever heavily threaded tasks are brought up, that price:performance number certainly changes. It's why context is important.

 

I also don't quite understand where you stand on this situation at all. One minute, you are disputing the performance of the 7900X in favor of threadripper, and the next, you are completely doing a 180 without really explaining your point. You were mentioning features that threadripper apparently has (without going into detail as to what the features were, outside of what the rest of us already mentioned) and now it seems you are considering threadripper the "less features, lower performing" option. I can't help but feel confused about this, unless you've recently changed your mind along the way.

 

1 minute ago, TheBeastPC said:

Why dont we say that AMD and intel are great CPU manufactures who are great competitors in the consumer market when it comes to gaming, content creation/video editing, server hardware and lots more. Intel and AMD both provide CPU's in which are targeted at different people in the consumer market, whether its the low end or the high end, both companies deliver great performance in terms of these two categories.

Well, a lot of already knew that. You kinda entered this thread with this statement:

9 hours ago, TheBeastPC said:

The core i9-7900X wont stand a chance against threadripper.

This only furthers my confusion, lol. 

[themctipers]

53 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

Damn that's a good score. *cries in 700 points*

pls

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I don't understand this sentence. "With the exception of their pricing", followed by a statement regarding their price:performance improving? Are we speaking in a relative sense? If so, relative to what? Just their previous products, or all CPU's in general? Understand, price:performance depends heavily on what you intend to use the product for. From a strictly gaming standpoint, the 7700k's price:performance absolutely destroys every Skylake-X CPU. However, that title might go to a much cheaper Ryzen 3 or Ryzen 5 CPU when making a comparison to gaming alone. Whenever heavily threaded tasks are brought up, that price:performance number certainly changes. It's why context is important.

 

I also don't quite understand where you stand on this situation at all. One minute, you are disputing the performance of the 7900X in favor of threadripper, and the next, you are completely doing a 180 without really explaining your point. You were mentioning features that threadripper apparently has (without going into detail as to what the features were, outside of what the rest of us already mentioned) and now it seems you are considering threadripper the "less features, lower performing" option. I can't help but feel confused about this, unless you've recently changed your mind along the way.

 

Well, a lot of already knew that. You kinda entered this thread with this statement:

This only furthers my confusion, lol. 

I am truely sorry about the confusion! What I am trying to say is, I like both companies whether its intel or AMD, and they both have great performance within their own CPU's.

[Bananasplit_00]

7 minutes ago, themctipers said:

pls

my 10.1" laptop with a first gen atom scored in the single didgets man...

[themctipers]

Just now, Bananasplit_00 said:

my 10.1" laptop with a first gen atom scored in the single didgets man...

i cant even run cinebench on my core duo laptop

[arnavvr]

58 minutes ago, MageTank said:

You are not only repeating exactly what he said to you, you are also repeating it twice in your own post. What additional "features" does TR contain that the 7900X doesn't have, that has not been discussed in this thread? We already mentioned the solder, PCIe lanes, and faster interconnect (infinity fabric), what else exists? It's also not a "budget oriented CPU for the consumer market". It's aimed at the enthusiast/content creation market. It's also priced within that market segment. It may be cheaper than Intel's similar market options, but it does not change the market in which it intends to compete.

 

People seem to forget that if threadripper (or Ryzen in general) was priced at exactly the same price as Intel, that nobody would even be considering it. It's main appeal is it's price. That's not a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either. AMD has some serious work to do if they want to capitalize on this recent adoption of their CPU's. Zen 2.0 needs a serious IMC, it needs stronger silicon with higher clock tolerance, and in doing so, it needs to be slightly more expensive as a result. I already know this last part will anger a lot of people, but they need the funding for R&D, and I can't imagine they are making enough overhead on these CPU's to properly push their CPU development far enough. By providing more performance, they can get away with charging more money on the next go around. I'd certainly pay an extra $100 premium on a Ryzen SKU with an even better IMC and better overclock tolerances. I am sure others would as well. 

 

AMD will not survive if they stay on the defensive, and continue to exist simply as the "cheaper alternative". Until they actually come back to take the performance crown, they are going to end up in Intel's shadow, regardless of how great their price:performance is. At the end of the day, price:performance isn't the be all, end all for every market segment, especially those that actually bring in the big bucks (HPC being where most of these companies revenue stems from). 

It's also about them updating the platform. I have seen the same stuff that is being said about Ryzen that were said about Bulldozer/Vishera. (more future-proof 8 cores, etc.) At the time of the 8120/8150's release, they were a decent alternative to the i5 2500K for content creators because it was faster than the i5 for multi threaded workloads but slower for single threaded workloads. This is true for Ryzen today. The Reason that FX failed was not that it was a bad platform, it failed because AMD only updated it after six years, compared to Intel's annual refreshes.

 

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, themctipers said:

-snip-
pls

How does it feel to make an APU and an ULV i5 commit suicide (the P4 was a mercy killing)?

[themctipers]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

How does it feel to make an APU and an ULV i5 commit suicide (the P4 was a mercy killing)?

?

[Dabombinable]

Just now, themctipers said:

?

Your laptop's CPU wrecks the ones in my laptops....

[themctipers]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

Your laptop's CPU wrecks the ones in my laptops....

4.5 watts of obliteration !

high performance multitasking cpu TO THE EXTREME

this thing cant even do 1080p without dropping a frame

[Simon771]

1,6V ... by my weird calculations, that CPU should be pulling over 450W power.

I think I didn't get that right ... back to my math books