4,2XFR on threadripper. Higher binned/new stepping chips) ?

[AnonymousGuy]

8 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

but what if you don't?  I assume throttling will hold it back.  so what's the difference between that and not reaching max turbo?  It seems like the "base clock" is a pointless number just thrown in to create the illusion of a dividing line for no reason other than to allow them to sell "turbo boost".  Ultimately, the chip will run as close as it can to the max turbo number, unless it's held back by thermals - what changes between the base clock zone and the turbo zone?  Nothing as far as I can tell.

It's just meant to set a (base) line.  If you have this cooler capacity + this chip's TDP we'll guarantee this frequency.   It isn't just thermal dependent though it's looking at the TDP as well .  My 22 core won't go above base clock if it's full loaded even though it runs at 40C under load.

[tom_w141]

8 minutes ago, DXMember said:

Yes Ryzen 7 chips do both boost and XFR at two cores

Ryzen Threadripper is going to do both boost and XFR on four cores

Nice if its true but i'll believe it when i see it  

[MageTank]

2 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

so it really is just pointless marketing then.  I have yet to see a valid reason for breaking the frequency range into more than two pieces - the "normal" or guaranteed range, and then the "you might get this if things are good" range.  Based on your description, AMD should really just do away with the "boost clock" and report the boost clock frequency as the base clock.  I mean, what actually is the difference between a "guaranteed minimum boost" and just a base clock?  As far as I can tell they differ only in name.

It's just a marketing gimmick to have another selling point over their non-X SKU's. It's basically a way for AMD to sell a slightly higher factory overclock for more money. I don't really mind it, since AMD unlocks all of their CPU's, so it's not going to hurt anyone else by not buying their factory overclock, but it does make things slightly confusing for people when they see two different turbo boost technologies on a single CPU.

[vanished]

Just now, MageTank said:

It's just a marketing gimmick to have another selling point over their non-X SKU's. It's basically a way for AMD to sell a slightly higher factory overclock for more money. I don't really mind it, since AMD unlocks all of their CPU's, so it's not going to hurt anyone else by not buying their factory overclock, but it does make things slightly confusing for people when they see two different turbo boost technologies on a single CPU.

Yeah I'd really like to see all the "turbo" nonsense just go away, on both sides.  The CPU has a coded value for the fastest it will run (without being manually overclocked) given the right conditions.  That's true across the entire frequency spectrum, so why break it up with special names and "technologies"? 

[Dackzy]

A part of me wants the 8c TR, just to get the extra 0.2  Though it is a good amount more vs the 1700 to get the extra 0.2

[Juanitology]

2 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

so it really is just pointless marketing then.  I have yet to see a valid reason for breaking the frequency range into more than two pieces - the "normal" or guaranteed range, and then the "you might get this if things are good" range.  Based on your description, AMD should really just do away with the "boost clock" and report the boost clock frequency as the base clock.  I mean, what actually is the difference between a "guaranteed minimum boost" and just a base clock?  As far as I can tell they differ only in name.

It's not pointless marketing. It's just being specific saying that it can boost up to 4.2GHz if thermals allow it but they guarantee 4.0 anyways as long as your cooler meets their TDP. It's pretty cut and dry if you ask me. compare that with intel's confusing turbo ratios that vary by core count like 2 core turbo to 4.4ghz, 4 cores to 4.3ghz, 6 cores to 4.3ghz, 8 cores to 4.1ghz, 10 cores to 4.0ghz, etc yeah inte's way of doing it is waaaay clearer and easier to remember. 

[MageTank]

38 minutes ago, Terodius said:

It's not pointless marketing. It's just being specific saying that it can boost up to 4.2GHz if thermals allow it but they guarantee 4.0 anyways as long as your cooler meets their TDP. It's pretty cut and dry if you ask me. compare that with intel's confusing turbo ratios that vary by core count like 2 core turbo to 4.4ghz, 4 cores to 4.3ghz, 6 cores to 4.3ghz, 8 cores to 4.1ghz, 10 cores to 4.0ghz, etc yeah inte's way of doing it is waaaay clearer and easier to remember. 

Normally, the "cut and dry" way of marketing this, would be to include the words "up to" somewhere on the boost page. This would imply that if perfect conditions are met, you can achieve "up to" 4.2ghz. Otherwise, whatever you got, is what you get. XFR in and of itself, is a marketing ploy to differentiate the same dies, for different prices. 

 

By saying "Turbo boost is X, but if you buy this CPU, it can also be Y if Z conditions are met" only obfuscates the process. I'd rather see less alternative SKU's for the same product, and keep the entire product stack simple. It would be different if the dies were cut down in a way that makes them physically different (like TR's core counts), but selling 3 Ryzen 7 chips with identical dies, and different base/turbo clocks, and identical overclocking potential, just seems silly. It's part of the reason why the 1800X isn't selling that well, given the 1700 is undercutting it hard. Yes, there will always be that crowd that refuses to overclock, and wants the best performance out of the box, but I can't imagine they make up that large of a percentage that they would pay almost $150 more for a few hundred mhz of performance. I could be wrong though, and most likely am. 

[Juanitology]

4 minutes ago, MageTank said:

but selling 3 Ryzen 7 chips with identical dies, and different base/turbo clocks, and identical overclocking potential, just seems silly.

In theory the 1700X is binned higher than the 1700 and the 1800X is binned even higher still. Sure you can play the silicon lottery and hope the 1700 you buy will clock as high as an 1800X, that's up to you. Thankfully all of AMD's Ryzen R7 chips are factory unlocked and have SMT enabled. I mean it's not like "other" companies would charge you 150+USD extra for the privilege of having an unlocked multiplier and multi-threaded version of the very same chip right?? now THAT would be silly. 

[MageTank]

Just now, Terodius said:

In theory the 1700X is binned higher than the 1700 and the 1800X is binned even higher still. Sure you can play the silicon lottery and hope the 1700 you buy will clock as high as an 1800X, that's up to you. Thankfully all of AMD's Ryzen R7 chips are factory unlocked and have SMT enabled. I mean it's not like "other" companies would charge you 150+USD extra for the privilege of having an unlocked multiplier and multi-threaded version of the very same chip right?? now THAT would be silly. 

People say that, but having gone through the OCN R7 owners club, I honestly could not see a difference in binning quality between them. Granted, I imagine the people that post to those clubs are overclockers only, so it's still going to be missing details about the average joe's chips, and there is no mention of them self-binning the CPU's or buying from SL's website either. I did see G Skill say that the IMC's are different on the chips, which would be a binning quality difference that most don't even see or mention. If that is the case, it's extremely important given how Ryzen's Infinity Fabric scales so well with memory.

 

Wish I had more CPU's to test with. Might see if my local Microcenter has any Open Box Ryzen CPU's for sale so that I can do some testing. 

[DXMember]

1 hour ago, Dackzy said:

A part of me wants the 8c TR, just to get the extra 0.2  Though it is a good amount more vs the 1700 to get the extra 0.2

it's about them PCIE lanes and memory slots though

[Dackzy]

1 hour ago, DXMember said:

it's about them PCIE lanes and memory slots though

true enough

[Jito463]

4 hours ago, MageTank said:

It's part of the reason why the 1800X isn't selling that well, given the 1700 is undercutting it hard. Yes, there will always be that crowd that refuses to overclock, and wants the best performance out of the box, but I can't imagine they make up that large of a percentage that they would pay almost $150 more for a few hundred mhz of performance. I could be wrong though, and most likely am. 

When I built my Ryzen system, I decided to go all in for the 1800x, because I didn't want to deal with overclocking.  I did consider saving money on the 1700x, or potentially going with the 1700; but in the end, I decided to just go with the best I could buy out of the box.  I had the money to splurge, and I did.

 

Having said that, I don't believe for a moment that I'm a majority - or even a large part - of the purchasing population.  For most people, the 1700/x will make the most sense.  And with the 1900x available now, I can't imagine there will be too many interested in the 1800x, apart from the savings on the motherboard.

[vanished]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

When I built my Ryzen system, I decided to go all in for the 1800x, because I didn't want to deal with overclocking.  I did consider saving money on the 1700x, or potentially going with the 1700; but in the end, I decided to just go with the best I could buy out of the box.  I had the money to splurge, and I did.

 

Having said that, I don't believe for a moment that I'm a majority - or even a large part - of the purchasing population.  For most people, the 1700/x will make the most sense.  And with the 1900x available now, I can't imagine there will be too many interested in the 1800x, apart from the savings on the motherboard.

Buying a lesser chip expecting to overclock to where you want is literally gambling, so yeah, if that's not for you, better to just get what you know will work

[ravenshrike]

5 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Buying a lesser chip expecting to overclock to where you want is literally gambling, so yeah, if that's not for you, better to just get what you know will work

Admittedly, if the reported Ryzen yields are true it's a very safe gamble, but still. Thing is, I'm pretty sure that they had explicit reasons for the binning categories at the start, but with the number of chips that are good they have had to shift better quality chips to lower bins.

[Juanitology]

17 hours ago, MageTank said:

People say that, but having gone through the OCN R7 owners club, I honestly could not see a difference in binning quality between them. Granted, I imagine the people that post to those clubs are overclockers only, so it's still going to be missing details about the average joe's chips, and there is no mention of them self-binning the CPU's or buying from SL's website either. I did see G Skill say that the IMC's are different on the chips, which would be a binning quality difference that most don't even see or mention. If that is the case, it's extremely important given how Ryzen's Infinity Fabric scales so well with memory.

 

Wish I had more CPU's to test with. Might see if my local Microcenter has any Open Box Ryzen CPU's for sale so that I can do some testing. 

Now that is quite interesting, I did not realize they had different IMCs. That would definitely be a way to bin the chips indirectly considering Ryzen is so dependent on memory frequency for performance.