Ryzen 2700X OCed to 4.3Ghz (1.4v) across all cores, performance numbers included.

[Humbug]

4 hours ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Zen and Zen 2 were planned for 14 and 12nm, not only that AMD only has one design team for their CPU's currently for next gen. 

They now have two CPU design teams which leapfrog each other...

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Razor01 said:

We have a midrange chips Ryzen R5's with 6 core 12 threads going up against 6 core 6 thread Intel's that eat up 50% more juice to get their performance advantage in rendering software

What? 50% more, no. Let me guess you're using the X variants for the comparison. As for 6c/6t vs 6c/12t that's purely pricing and Intel being Intel, they could enable HT on i5's if the wanted to.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3086-intel-i5-8400-cpu-review-2666mhz-vs-3200mhz-gaming/page-2

 

3 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Do we believe in AMD's multi dimensional improvements with Zen 2 7nm?  I don't.  They only had 1 more year of design work for this upcoming chip.....actually not even that more time.

Not according to the statements made by AMD about already known improvements they could do, and only in Zen2 when they first released Zen. You quite literally know nothing about what AMD has planned, what their capabilities are. You seem to honestly think AMD engineers are a bunch of chimps or something.

 

All you want is a complete and resounding success is all areas, for all products, under all conditions otherwise it's a failure. Be realistic.

[Razor01]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

What? 50% more, no. Let me guess you're using the X variants for the comparison. As for 6c/6t vs 6c/12t that's purely pricing and Intel being Intel, they could enable HT on i5's if the wanted to.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3086-intel-i5-8400-cpu-review-2666mhz-vs-3200mhz-gaming/page-2

 

Not according to the statements made by AMD about already known improvements they could do, and only in Zen2 when they first released Zen. You quite literally know nothing about what AMD has planned, what their capabilities are. You seem to honestly think AMD engineers are a bunch of chimps or something.

 

All you want is a complete and resounding success is all areas, for all products, under all conditions otherwise it's a failure. Be realistic.

 

 

X variants what are those? 1600x?  Lets see what happens when you compare a 1600x to a non k 8700 or i5 8600.  A non K 8700 is perfect match up of 6 core 12 threads.  Similar power consumption to the 1600x and it beats it in everything from rendering/productivity to gaming.  That is what is going to happen once 8 core Intel chips come out for desktop, they aren't going make another tier for them, they are just going to replace current tiers.  Just like they did with Coffee Lake.

 

No I'm not, might want to look at what the chipsets do for Intel power consumption .  Hardware Unboxed did do a test with the B motherboards

 

Big difference in power system power usage for Intel 8400 vs Ryzen 5 1600x.  Actually its more like 65% difference, so sorry I underestimated.

 

Time allotting.  I'm going to say this again, just like what I stated for Vega, they didn't have time do shit with Vega and what we got was a mediocre chip.  6 to 8 more months of engineering using a previous architecture will not gain much.

 

Be realistic that is realistic.

 

Yes realistic even One Full year of design won't give them much.  They need two to three years to make proper scalable changes, otherwise we end up with Vega, features here and there that never materialize in a productive way.

 

Going to say this again, what the 12nm node was supposed to give never gave AMD, 10% performance increase via clockspeeds with same power consumption. Nope didn't happen the architecture is hitting the limits of voltage on the current nodes, this will not change because of a node change to any appreciable degree, we might see another 200 to 300 mhz change that is straight from a AMD and Intel CPU engineer, nodes don't give much anymore.  Major changes need to be done to address that before any other design changes are done because that is transistor layout which comes before the chip design.  That on itself will take more than 12 months!  Chip design can't be done prior to that being done also.  Because they need have a good understanding of target frequencies and voltages to design the chip.

 

Yeah if you have chimps doing this then they wouldn't worry about these things.  I don't think they have chimps, because we know the time they have had to design this upcoming chip, its not enough time do all the things they stated.

[Razor01]

1 hour ago, Humbug said:

They now have two CPU design teams which leapfrog each other...

 

 

No they don't at least not in the way you are thinking, not yet, they split the main team that made Zen to two teams, one that works on future architecture in this case, Zen 2 and one that worked on Zen +, but the problem is its still only 6 to 8 months of dev time for Zen 2.  Tape out of Zen 2 just happened, when did Zen 1 launch.  Just under a year ago.  The team split happened after the launch of Zen, if we believe what AMD stated, which is logical because validation must be done by the senior members of the team because its a new architecture.  So the team that is working on Zen 2 is now working on Zen 3, which they actually have two years for. 

 

See that is the leap frog, not Zen 2. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Razor01 said:

X variants what are those? 1600x?  Lets see what happens when you compare a 1600x to a non k 8700 or i5 8600.

You were talking about 8400 and 50% more power, which could only ever be the case for an X model Ryzen. If you checked the Gamers Nexus review I linked you'd see not even the 8 core 1700 is 50% more power than the 8400, 2 more cores than the 1600.

 

And I'm sorry but how much does a 8700 or 8600 cost compared to a 1600, yea exactly. That comparison has no value, might as well bring in HEDT to complete the pointless non cost equivalent comparisons.

 

2 hours ago, Razor01 said:

No I'm not, might want to look at what the chipsets do for Intel power consumption .  Hardware Unboxed did do a test with the B motherboards

Absolutely nothing, chipsets do not lower CPU power draw. The Gamers Nexus review, someone who knows how to actually test, uses a current clamp on the EPS CPU power which gives you a true and accurate power reading for the CPU alone.

 

2 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Big difference in power system power usage for Intel 8400 vs Ryzen 5 1600x.  Actually its more like 65% difference, so sorry I underestimated.

55%, and yet again if you're going to compare a 95W TDP CPU then your point isn't worth listening to. The 1600 exists you know, it uses far less.

 

2 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Going to say this again, what the 12nm node was supposed to give never gave AMD, 10% performance increase via clockspeeds with same power consumption.

And where is the review sources for this information that is true and 100% correct for products that are not released yet and reviews now allowed to be released yet?

 

Even this very rumor that this thread is about is showing a 12% increase for cinebench, 11% for x264 and 7% for firestrike. Seems that AMD is delivering exactly what they stated based on this.

 

Quote

So first up along that line is Zen+. This will be the name of the core in the 2nd Generation Ryzen family, built on GlobalFoundries 12LP process. AMD has categorically stated that the core microarchitecture underneath has not changed: we will still have the same front-end and back-end as Zen, with the same size caches and the same layout. What has changed will be some of the power management algorithms, and perhaps some tweaks to the neural network-based prefetch algorithms. This will be headlined as ‘Precision Boost 2’ support, which is a feature that has already been introduced to the Ryzen with Vega graphics components (desktop and mobile).

 

Quote

For the new processors, AMD is claiming a 10% boost in performance per watt overall. This is going to be taken as higher clocks for the same power at the high-end and lower power for the same frequency for more power sensitive products.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12233/amd-tech-day-at-ces-2018-roadmap-revealed-with-ryzen-apus-zen-on-12nm-vega-on-7nm/8

 

The above is what AMD have actually said and so far it looks to be exactly the case.

 

Doesn't seem worth continuing this discussion to me.

[The Benjamins]

2700x at 4.2Ghz

[Razor01]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

You were talking about 8400 and 50% more power, which could only ever be the case for an X model Ryzen. If you checked the Gamers Nexus review I linked you'd see not even the 8 core 1700 is 50% more power than the 8400, 2 more cores than the 1600.

 

And I'm sorry but how much does a 8700 or 8600 cost compared to a 1600, yea exactly. That comparison has no value, might as well bring in HEDT to complete the pointless non cost equivalent comparisons.

 

Absolutely nothing, chipsets do not lower CPU power draw. The Gamers Nexus review, someone who knows how to actually test, uses a current clamp on the EPS CPU power which gives you a true and accurate power reading for the CPU alone.

 

55%, and yet again if you're going to compare a 95W TDP CPU then your point isn't worth listening to. The 1600 exists you know, it uses far less.

 

 

 

That's why I stated compare it to another 95 watt Intel chip!  One that actually has the same core count and threads!

 

 

Oh yes you don't want to listen to that because the "price is different"  Price is freakin arbitrary and controlled by the market based on performance!, chip core count and threads are NOT!

 

Yeah you don't want to talk about that because AMD gets freaking spanked!  In the neighborhood of 20 to 30%.

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

And where is the review sources for this information that is true and 100% correct for products that are not released yet and reviews now allowed to be released yet?

 

Even this very rumor that this thread is about is showing a 12% increase for cinebench, 11% for x264 and 7% for firestrike. Seems that AMD is delivering exactly what they stated based on this.

 

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12233/amd-tech-day-at-ces-2018-roadmap-revealed-with-ryzen-apus-zen-on-12nm-vega-on-7nm/8

 

The above is what AMD have actually said and so far it looks to be exactly the case.

 

Doesn't seem worth continuing this discussion to me.

 

Oh really lets wait and see what the reviews show   yeah I already know!

 

You don't want to discuss with me because what you just stated is going to be way off, just wait and see.

 

I'll tell you one thing, what I post about, there is a very good chance that I have much more information then what you find on the internet.

[pas008]

comparing the 2 is not that easy there is more than single threaded and multithreaded along with power

 

memory controller, igpu, etc

 

its like you guys always want blue vs red vs green shit here

its like you guys are beer or truck snobs, but in fact each is a desired preference for what you want/need

 

 

 

 

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, pas008 said:

comparing the 2 is not that easy there is more than single threaded and multithreaded along with power

 

memory controller, igpu, etc

 

its like you guys always want blue vs red vs green shit here

its like you guys are beer or truck snobs, but in fact each is a desired preference for what you want/need

 

 

 

 

 

 

Single threaded performance is purely due to the memory performance so if we use a 15% faster memory with Ryzen 2 its single threaded performance will go up, and multithreaded performance will go up too.  There has been no changes under the hood.

 

oddly enough I was drunk last night lol.

 

More food for thought a 2700x and 8700k are right around the same performance with multi-threaded tasks. 2700x still wins out but not by much talking about 10-15% difference but at the cost of Much more power 25 to 30% more power.

[leadeater]

36 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Oh yes you don't want to listen to that because the "price is different"  Price is freakin arbitrary and controlled by the market based on performance!, chip core count and threads are NOT!

Price literally means everything, if I'm looking for a $180 CPU then I don't care that a $300 one is faster.

 

Here's a novel idea, compare two 95W chips at the same price point like a normal non biased person would.

 

You know the very reason why I'm having to ignore what you're saying is you are purposefully picking product comparisons to fit your narrative rather than picking the actual comparable products, do yourself a favor and put some more thought in to your arguments.

 

I haven't even said if the Ryzen processors are even better or not, all I've been doing is pointing out your inaccurate statements. Plus you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the Ryzen product stack more than once which further reduces credibility. If you didn't make inaccurate statements this conversion would have been a lot shorter.

 

36 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Oh really lets wait and see what the reviews show   yeah I already know!

You can't know, unless you've received a review sample or someone has broken NDA you don't know. Impossible without violating AMD agreements which I have no reason to believe is the case.

 

36 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

You don't want to discuss with me because what you just stated is going to be way off, just wait and see.

The only thing I have stated is a quote from AMD themselves and pointed to the source of this thread. I don't want to discuss something with a person who shows no ability to actually have a reasonable discussion about the topic, why should I waste my time.

 

You think Zen is a failure, keep your opinion as that rather than try and spread that opinion as facts.

[Razzy_85]

I'm just glad AMD are back in the game and that intel were shown for their contempt of the consumer once again but hey, everyone aboard the intel train right?

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Price literally means everything, if I'm looking for a $180 CPU then I don't care that a $300 one is faster.

 

Here's a novel idea, compare two 95W chips at the same price point like a normal non biased person would.

 

You know the very reason why I'm having to ignore what you're saying is you are purposefully picking product comparisons to fit your narrative rather than picking the actual comparable products, do yourself a favor and put some more thought in to your arguments.

 

I haven't even said if the Ryzen processors are even better or not, all I've been doing is pointing out your inaccurate statements. Plus you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the Ryzen product stack more than once which further reduces credibility. If you didn't make inaccurate statements this conversion would have been a lot shorter.

 

You can't know, unless you've received a review sample or someone has broken NDA you don't know. Impossible without violating AMD agreements which I have no reason to believe is the case.

 

The only thing I have stated is a quote from AMD themselves and pointed to the source of this thread. I don't want to discuss something with a person who shows no ability to actually have a reasonable discussion about the topic, why should I waste my time.

 

You think Zen is a failure, keep your opinion as that rather than try and spread that opinion as facts.

yeah price does include igpu? memory controller?

how many offices are going to use 1600 when they need gpu also?

 

there is more to these equations than single threaded vs multithreaded power

 

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, pas008 said:

yeah price does include igpu? memory controller?

how many offices are going to use 1600 when they need gpu also?

An important factor if that is your use case, but that wasn't part of that discussion. When one of the big primary performance differences is in gaming and that's so heavily pointed at then the iGPU side doesn't play a big role though.

 

Dedicated graphics cards in business workstations isn't that uncommon though, we have 4 tiers of standard configurations that departments can pick from when ordering computers and only 1 doesn't have a dGPU and that's a SFF HP EliteDesk 800, nice computers those are.

 

Ryzen isn't really targeting the general business desktop market though, it's too miss matched for it. As you said without an iGPU it's basically a non starter.

[Trixanity]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

An important factor if that is your use case, but that wasn't part of that discussion. When one of the big primary performance differences is in gaming and that's so heavily pointed at then the iGPU side doesn't play a big role though.

 

Dedicated graphics cards in business workstations isn't that uncommon though, we have 4 tiers of standard configurations that departments can pick from when ordering computers and only 1 doesn't have a dGPU and that's a SFF HP EliteDesk 800, nice computers those are.

 

Ryzen isn't really targeting the general business desktop market though, it's too miss matched for it. As you said without an iGPU it's basically a non starter.

Aren't Ryzen Pro models meant to target the business market?

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Aren't Ryzen Pro models meant to target the business market?

Kind of, the higher end of that market though. Same problem, without iGPU it's not doing to replace the HP EliteDesk 800 SFF type's.

[Razor01]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

An important factor if that is your use case, but that wasn't part of that discussion. When one of the big primary performance differences is in gaming and that's so heavily pointed at then the iGPU side doesn't play a big role though.

 

Dedicated graphics cards in business workstations isn't that uncommon though, we have 4 tiers of standard configurations that departments can pick from when ordering computers and only 1 doesn't have a dGPU and that's a SFF HP EliteDesk 800, nice computers those are.

 

Ryzen isn't really targeting the general business desktop market though, it's too miss matched for it. As you said without an iGPU it's basically a non starter.

 

 

Price is not an important factor when talking about the technology of the chip.  Price is arbitrary based on marketable presence.

 

AMD NEEDS to price their higher core and thread count chips lower to sell!

 

Leave price out of it and look at the technology.

 

Current upcoming AMD products:

 

< Perf/watt over Intel in most tasks even Multithreaded tasks! 

 

You want to make this personal, I'm talking about the tech, nothing else, price is not part of the tech.

 

AMD needs 8 core 16 threads to go against a 6 core 12 thread Intel and it doesn't look good because price is going to be similar, if you want to talk about price.

 

Did you expect Intel to catch up with SMT performance with one generation of a generation that was already planned for well before Ryzen was released?

 

I didn't expect this at all!  Because apparently Coffee Lake wasn't just adding 2 more cores.  There seems to be changes that addressed their multi core (SMT) performance.

 

There seems to be a 33% difference in performance core to core over all between Intel and AMD products.

 

Where is this coming from?  Because Ryzen vs Kaby Lake/Sky Lake, Ryzen seemed to be much closer than that...... around 15% per core performance

 

The only thing I can see so far is the amount of cycles in L1 to L2 to L3 has changed for Intel but I don't see how that is going to affect SMT performance to any appreciable degree not this much.

 

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Price is not an important factor when talking about the technology of the chip.  Price is arbitrary based on marketable presence.

 

AMD NEEDS to price their higher core and thread count chips lower to sell!

 

Leave price out of it and look at the technology.

It's not arbitrary, unaffordable technology is useless. It's always a factor otherwise we'd all have 24 core Xeons in our desktops.

 

6 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

AMD needs 8 core 16 threads to go against a 6 core 12 thread Intel and it doesn't look good because price is going to be similar, if you want to talk about price.

And why is needing more cores an issue? Does everything in the market need to literally be exact copies of each other? Bottom line is always price and performance, core and thread configuration is just interesting to look at in those comparisons. 

 

10 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

You want to make this personal, I'm talking about the tech, nothing else, price is not part of the tech.

No actually I don't. The problem is you are presenting your personal opinions as facts so when someone has to give a counter argument to them it's just going to look personal due to that.

 

I really don't care if AMD or Intel is better, just put forward correct and fair information.

 

Also I think you quoted the wrong thing?

[Drak3]

7 minutes ago, pas008 said:

yeah price does include igpu? memory controller?

how many offices are going to use 1600 when they need gpu also?

The cost difference can pay for a dGPU more powerful than Intel HD, and unless you're an enthusiast or a niche case user, the 1600 is not going to be far behind the 8700 for what most people want and need.

 

Memory controllers are integrated, but to most people, the differences are not critical enough to warrant paying higher prices.

[Razor01]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's not arbitrary, unaffordable technology is useless. It's always a factor otherwise we'd all have 24 core Xeons in our desktops.

Price is arbitrary in this discussion, I'm talking about the tech, not who is buying what!  If you want that, here you go, 2.1% marketshare

 

in the past year for Ryzen is shit, its price didn't much much difference.

 

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And why is needing more cores an issue? Does everything in the market need to literally be exact copies of each other? Bottom line is always price and performance, core and thread configuration is just interesting to look at in those comparisons.

 

When talking about the tech behind it yeah it means a lot that means Intel has a 33% advantage on per core performance.  And look above if you want to talk about price.

 

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No actually I don't. The problem is you are presenting your personal opinions as facts so when someone has to give a counter argument to them it's just going to look personal due to that.

 

I really don't care if AMD or Intel is better, just put forward correct and fair information.

 

So you disagree Coffee lake has a 33% advantage over Ryzen 2 when it comes to core to core performance, we shell see.  I can't tell you right now you are wrong lol.  Cause I have the figures right in front of me lol.

 

This is the correct information.  If you looked hard enough with the review and leaked figures you can see what I'm saying has truth behind it.

 

You seem to care very much so because you don't want to look at the leaks, even though those leaks are not really leaks its actually chips being tested.

 

Understand this AMD is like a leaky faucet, if you ask the right people you get the right info.  They can't keep their mouth shut.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And why is needing more cores an issue? Does everything in the market need to literally be exact copies of each other? Bottom line is always price and performance, core and thread configuration is just interesting to look at in those comparisons. 

This actually mirrors an argument that a friend and I have had.

 

I have a hexacore Haswell-E, he has an octocore Ivy (or maybe Sandy)-EP. Both chips have damned near the same multicore horsepower, at stock.

 

But for tasks that don't benefit from more than 4-6 cores, my chip is faster. Higher IPC and clock.

 

Many smaller concurrent tasks, his chip is better, because it can work on more of them simutaniously.

 

Then I overclocked my chip. Got to one up his watercooled Xeon and RAM as much as possible.

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's always a factor otherwise we'd all have 24 core Xeons in our desktops

Only 24? Pleb.

[Razor01]

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The cost difference can pay for a dGPU more powerful than Intel HD, and unless you're an enthusiast or a niche case user, the 1600 is not going to be far behind the 8700 for what most people want and need.

 

Memory controllers are integrated, but to most people, the differences are not critical enough to warrant paying higher prices.

 

The 2700x is going against the 8700x and it pretty much ties it in multithreaded apps and looses in gaming.

 

the R5's forget it, they are lower in performance and that is it, unless you need a mid level system for rendering, which is pointless, if its a job that you are buying a system for, spend the money and get a real rendering machine it will help save money in the long run even its 3 or 4 times the cost.  The cost per hour of a salary is more important.  One person over a 6 month span can save more money on proper rendering system.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

 

The 2700x is going against the 8700x and it pretty much ties it in multithreaded apps and looses in gaming.

 

the R5's forget it, they are lower in performance and that is it, unless you need a mid level system for rendering, which is pointless, if its a job that you are buying a system for, spend the money and get a real rendering machine it will help save money in the long run even its 3 or 4 times the cost.  The cost per hour of a salary is more important.  One person over a 6 month span can save more money on proper rendering system.

Funny how you think I give a shit about what you've got to say on the matter.

 

Because I don't.

[Razor01]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Funny how you think I give a shit about what you've got to say on the matter.

 

Because I don't.

 

For you doesn't matter, then why even post your comment?  Seems like you care enough to post about something you don't seem to understand much about.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

So you disagree Coffee lake has a 33% advantage over Ryzen 2 when it comes to core to core performance, we shell see.  I can't tell you right now you are wrong lol.  Cause I have the figures right in front of me lol.

No I didn't even address it at all so I'd appreciate you not saying things like this which were not even covered.

 

11 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

When talking about the tech behind it yeah it means a lot that means Intel has a 33% advantage on per core performance.  And look above if you want to talk about price

And if the tech is designed to use more cores it's now suddenly worse when your metric is Intel is the the proper way to do it? How is that having a proper discussion about technology. I'd be equally interested if Ryzen had 48 tiny cores that together gave similar performance to Intel's 4 or 6. I don't want a lets copy Intel industry, you don't copy your competition to try and beat them that never works.

 

11 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

You seem to care very much so because you don't want to look at the leaks, even though those leaks are not really leaks its actually chips being tested.

One of the leaks is this topic and I quoted the performance increases from 1700X to 2700X indicated in them and how it matches exactly what AMD said they were going to do. Do you not actually read the posts in full?

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No I didn't even address it at all so I'd appreciate you not saying things like this which were not even covered.

 

 

You didn't?

 

Your quote

Quote

No actually I don't. The problem is you are presenting your personal opinions as facts so when someone has to give a counter argument to them it's just going to look personal due to that.

To my quote
 

Quote

 

You want to make this personal, I'm talking about the tech, nothing else, price is not part of the tech.

 

The tech I'm talking about is the core and thread count vs. each company.

 

You stated this was my personal opinion, its NOT MY OPINION.  unless you misquoted me, I don't know where its coming from them.

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

One of the leaks is this topic and I quoted the performance increases from 1700X to 2700X indicated in them and how it matches exactly what AMD said they were going to do. Do you not actually read the posts in full?

 

Oh you didn't read where that performance came from ( I said it and said how much too), it came from because of the faster ram, what you want to pull out numbers before you equalize the system in ever regard outside of what you want to test for.  That is scientific method.

 

See difference logical deduction based on isolation is kinda important here even if you don't have the full information, unlike me, you can still figure out where I'm coming from.