14nm 6th Time Over: Intel Readies 10-core "Comet Lake" Die to Preempt "Zen 2" AM4

[Abwx]

List the other B350s that can handle a 2700x without overheating/throttling. I'm waiting.

That s akin to ask him to prove a negative, so rather point, and prove, wich are the MBs that throttle the CPU...

 

[coercitiv]

List the other B350s that can handle a 2700x without overheating/throttling. I'm waiting.

The Tomahawk / Mortar B350 series from MSI could do 4Ghz on 1800X, so they should handle the 2700X at stock without hiccups. The Mortar sold very well in my country, as it had a very good price and is the epitome of mediocrity - nothing special, nothing bad.

For someone pretending to know the facts please explain me why my Asrock AB350 M-ITX had completely identical VRM's to the X370 M-ITX? As others have stated VRM choice is made by the motherboard manufacturer and not depending on the chipset.

The two Asrock M-ITX boards were were very similar in terms of features and their cost reflected this, with the AB350 board hitting quite a high price for a non-X chipset model.

Also, the first batches of this board were at least partly wrongly designed, with an inadequate VRM heatsink & thermal-pad that would throttle high core count CPUs. People were actively searching for the second revision without the thick thermal-pad.

 

[Markfw]

No you didn't. All you proved is that people can skimp on X370 boards. A bad X370 board does not mean that B350s actually have good VRM configs. There might be some B350s out there that can handle one, and if you want a hint, I think @Markfw actually had an ASRock B350 that could handle a 2700x without thermal throttling. MAYBE. But he had a first-gen Ryzen at around 3.8-3.9 GHz on his so I'm not so sure. Still that's one board that might fit the bill.

List the other B350s that can handle a 2700x without overheating/throttling. I'm waiting.



I think more than one board OEM set their default PL2 to 210W for reviewers. The reviewers had to dial it back to get within Intel spec (160W). Unless the end user is skilled enough to a). know about the problem in the first place and b). know how to change the setting, then they're going to treat the PL2 setting as the "stock" performance for their chip. If all you run is defaults, the board's gonna shoot for that power limit anyway. If it can't get there, you're leaving something on the table as far as the end user is concerned, right?

Is there even one Z370 board out there that can hit PL2 without the VRMs throttling it back? How about the 160W "all core turbo" power limit? I'll bet there's at least one that can do it.

Nope. I have 470 boards on my 2700x's. I have a 1700x on my b350 board, and I had it to 3.9 before I went back to stock and gave it to my son for work.

 

[krumme]

No you didn't. All you proved is that people can skimp on X370 boards. A bad X370 board does not mean that B350s actually have good VRM configs. There might be some B350s out there that can handle one, and if you want a hint, I think @Markfw actually had an ASRock B350 that could handle a 2700x without thermal throttling. MAYBE. But he had a first-gen Ryzen at around 3.8-3.9 GHz on his so I'm not so sure. Still that's one board that might fit the bill.

List the other B350s that can handle a 2700x without overheating/throttling. I'm waiting.



I think more than one board OEM set their default PL2 to 210W for reviewers. The reviewers had to dial it back to get within Intel spec (160W). Unless the end user is skilled enough to a). know about the problem in the first place and b). know how to change the setting, then they're going to treat the PL2 setting as the "stock" performance for their chip. If all you run is defaults, the board's gonna shoot for that power limit anyway. If it can't get there, you're leaving something on the table as far as the end user is concerned, right?

Is there even one Z370 board out there that can hit PL2 without the VRMs throttling it back? How about the 160W "all core turbo" power limit? I'll bet there's at least one that can do it.

A guess of the top Is all asrock atx and matx 350 boards can do it. Stock 2700x. No probs. Same vrm layout basically. Same vrm layout as the basic 370 asrocks boards.
Most of the time vrm layout is perfectly same between 350 and 370. Only high-end boards is better.

Anyways. Then they can probably run 12c zen2. Who cares if they run 16c. 8c is plenty anyways for that price level.

 

[DrMrLordX]

A guess of the top Is all asrock atx and matx 350 boards can do it. Stock 2700x. No probs. Same vrm layout basically. Same vrm layout as the basic 370 asrocks boards.
Most of the time vrm layout is perfectly same between 350 and 370. Only high-end boards is better.

Really? I would say almost of them, since taking full advantage of XFR2 can run voltages of 1.3v-1.5v typically. On your typical B350 board you are going to be limited to 3.9-4.0 GHz, anything higher and the VRM temp throttlefest will kick in. Unless you rig up secondary cooling for the VRM sink (if any).

And before anyone says anything, that's "stock". Unless you want your 2700x locked at 3.8 GHz all the time?

Anyways. Then they can probably run 12c zen2. Who cares if they run 16c. 8c is plenty anyways for that price level.

12c? Cmon now, the reason why B350 had so much trouble with 8c in the first place was current draw. That's only going to get worse on 4+2 and 4+3 configs.

Nope. I have 470 boards on my 2700x's. I have a 1700x on my b350 board, and I had it to 3.9 before I went back to stock and gave it to my son for work.

Huh, woulda been interesting to see how that B350 would fare with a 2700x, but from what I've seen, not terribly well.

The Tomahawk / Mortar B350 series from MSI could do 4Ghz on 1800X, so they should handle the 2700X at stock without hiccups. The Mortar sold very well in my country, as it had a very good price and is the epitome of mediocrity - nothing special, nothing bad.

I dunno if that board would take a 2700x through the full range of XFR2 clocks though. My 1800x @ 4.0 GHz can pull over 160W easily, and sometimes into the 180-210W territory. A 2700x stock running through all its boost options can pull voltages in the same ballpark as mine (1.375v) and higher. Sometimes as high as 1.5v! Something tells me that B350 would stop a 2700x before hitting the top of the boost map.

That s akin to ask him to prove a negative, so rather point, and prove, wich are the MBs that throttle the CPU...

If you want to get into that side of things, it's really down to who made the first statement, namely: did I initially claim B350 was inadequate for Zen2 (and in many cases Zen and Zen+ octocores) or did he initially claim they would be fine?

Tell you what, since this issue has been well-discussed in the past elsewhere, I'll just leave this here:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-amd-cpus/1626601-post-your-ryzen-vrm-temperatures.html

Lots of reading, but do some cogitating as to whether or not those boards will handle a 2700x across its normal boost range if they are having VRM temps in the 110 range with a 1700 @ 3.8 GHz . . .

 

[coercitiv]

I dunno if that board would take a 2700x through the full range of XFR2 clocks though. My 1800x @ 4.0 GHz can pull over 160W easily, and sometimes into the 180-210W territory. A 2700x stock running through all its boost options can pull voltages in the same ballpark as mine (1.375v) and higher. Sometimes as high as 1.5v! Something tells me that B350 would stop a 2700x before hitting the top of the boost map.

You wanted examples of boards that keep the 2700X from throttling, you have it. If it can run 1800X overclocked at 4Ghz, it will handle stock 2700X and will likely boost into XFR as long as cooling is adequate.

Be careful though, conflating "full range of XFR2" and "stock" leads to a dangerous logical disconnect in which the 2700X is a 105W TDP and a 150W+ TDP CPU at the same time. Just because it can clock higher based on XFR clock headroom doesn't mean it should do so no matter the load.

 

[Topweasel]

Tell you what, since this issue has been well-discussed in the past elsewhere, I'll just leave this here:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-amd-cpus/1626601-post-your-ryzen-vrm-temperatures.html

Lots of reading, but do some cogitating as to whether or not those boards will handle a 2700x across its normal boost range if they are having VRM temps in the 110 range with a 1700 @ 3.8 GHz . . .

So basically what I was saying earlier. It's not even really the VRM's themselves that are at fault but crappy cooling that doesn't do it's job if it's not fed if air isn't forced over it like from a CPU cooler or something.

This isn't about board limitations this about bad combination of parts made by a system builder (even if system builder is just a random guy).

All on a Overclockers forum where all guys reporting temperature issues are running overclocked CPU's. One is running at something like 1.46v. Way above AMD's recommended limit where CPU degregation (sorry can't spell) can happen. Guess what? That CPU will die before the board does.

The lesson is don't skimp on a board if you are using an exepensive cooler to go with your expensive CPU. Or if you have to find away to feed air over the VRM's. X370 boards do go overboard with the VRM's and their heatsinks and that keeps the pressure off of the phases. But the point isn't that they aren't capable. They aren't capable when you take away their predesigned cooling method. The X370 boards assume water cooling to some degree.

 

[krumme]

Really? I would say almost of them, since taking full advantage of XFR2 can run voltages of 1.3v-1.5v typically. On your typical B350 board you are going to be limited to 3.9-4.0 GHz, anything higher and the VRM temp throttlefest will kick in. Unless you rig up secondary cooling for the VRM sink (if any).

And before anyone says anything, that's "stock". Unless you want your 2700x locked at 3.8 GHz all the time?



12c? Cmon now, the reason why B350 had so much trouble with 8c in the first place was current draw. That's only going to get worse on 4+2 and 4+3 configs.



Huh, woulda been interesting to see how that B350 would fare with a 2700x, but from what I've seen, not terribly well.



I dunno if that board would take a 2700x through the full range of XFR2 clocks though. My 1800x @ 4.0 GHz can pull over 160W easily, and sometimes into the 180-210W territory. A 2700x stock running through all its boost options can pull voltages in the same ballpark as mine (1.375v) and higher. Sometimes as high as 1.5v! Something tells me that B350 would stop a 2700x before hitting the top of the boost map.



If you want to get into that side of things, it's really down to who made the first statement, namely: did I initially claim B350 was inadequate for Zen2 (and in many cases Zen and Zen+ octocores) or did he initially claim they would be fine?

Tell you what, since this issue has been well-discussed in the past elsewhere, I'll just leave this here:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-amd-cpus/1626601-post-your-ryzen-vrm-temperatures.html

Lots of reading, but do some cogitating as to whether or not those boards will handle a 2700x across its normal boost range if they are having VRM temps in the 110 range with a 1700 @ 3.8 GHz . . .

This is totally unsubstantiated.
Any Asus and asrock matx atx boards run fine.
As long as the board is not designed for 65w cpu it goes well. For full xfr2.

Ofcource a few boards is bad. Goes for 370 series too. Often the problem here is colorfull plastic on the vrm.

Asus prime does that in the mid 70ties. Not that it's needed. Vrm can be much higher and it's no probs.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Heh. Fine. You win! Hell I showed you a link with a Gaming 3 motherboard running 110C VRM temps (and rising!) while running only 3.8 GHz. Pretty much every MSI and Gigabyte B350 has the same VRM layout. Most B350 owners have to add fans to do any overclocking at all with 1700s, which means XFR2 is an instant dud on those boards. If you want to keep telling people that they're okay and that 12-core Zen2 chips will fly right along unhindered, be my guest. I want no part of that.

You wanted examples of boards that keep the 2700X from throttling, you have it. If it can run 1800X overclocked at 4Ghz, it will handle stock 2700X and will likely boost into XFR as long as cooling is adequate.

Be careful though, conflating "full range of XFR2" and "stock" leads to a dangerous logical disconnect in which the 2700X is a 105W TDP and a 150W+ TDP CPU at the same time. Just because it can clock higher based on XFR clock headroom doesn't mean it should do so no matter the load.

I wanted to address this point specifically.

If you pop a 2700x into an AM4 motherboard with a UEFI rev that supports XFR2, it will, by default, try to boost through the whole range unless you disable XFR2or unless you have one of those boards that does not enable it by default (not sure which ones enable it by default). To the consumer that is the default behavior, period. That is stock.

And no, just because a board can run an 1800x @ 4.0 GHz does not mean it's going to get the full XFR2 range, which I already articulated. And you ignored. Maybe if you add VRM cooling, it'll do it. Oh, and that's one board.

But like I said, you win.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Wow, I actually thought this thread was about, Comet Lake, not a dissertation on AMD motherboards.

 

[Markfw]

Wow, I actually thought this thread was about, Comet Lake, not a dissertation on AMD motherboards.

Zen2 and am4 are both in the thread title, so its not off-topic, even though it is mainly about what Intel is going to do.

 

[gorobei]

buildzoid has a video with quick takes on all the b450 boards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWAwOH-egFs
short version, they are all not great with shortcomings in either vrm components, cooling, or bios. so he cant recommend any of them.

the closest would be the msi gaming pro carbon because the vrm is the same as their x470 board, but because msi doesnt have voltage offset in the bios it runs hotter under pbo which negates any performance increase.

it is a bit moot, as i assume this board vrm stuff comes from the premise of intel sticking another 2 cores on the i9 9900 series. if you think b450 is inadequate for overclocking, the intel boards are way worse vrm-wise when it comes to dealing with 8 cores of boost clock much less a 10 core. buildzoid has some videos on the z390 boards and the cooling requirement numbers he throws around are daunting on air solutions.

 

[Campy]

buildzoid has a video with quick takes on all the b450 boards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWAwOH-egFs
short version, they are all not great with shortcomings in either vrm components, cooling, or bios. so he cant recommend any of them.

Here's a newer one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMJoLyrWa7E

Seems much more positive towards many of the B450 boards than in the pre-release vid, particularly the MSI boards seem like very good value with better mosfets than the opposition.

 

[Spartak]

Looks like we get a new architecture next year after all.

 

[jpiniero]

Looks like we get a new architecture next year after all.

There seems to be some confusion on this, but the Sunny Cove cores are 10 nm only. Comet Lake is still good old Skylake.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Still skeptical about this. They talk about increased IPC, but it could be negated by lower clocks than 14nm. Also skeptical about the Gen 11 igpu. I would rather see them devote the die space to more cores with a small igpu for basic use. Igpu is, and always will be, a marginal solution at best for gaming.

 

[JasonLD]

Still skeptical about this. They talk about increased IPC, but it could be negated by lower clocks than 14nm. Also skeptical about the Gen 11 igpu. I would rather see them devote the die space to more cores with a small igpu for basic use. Igpu is, and always will be, a marginal solution at best for gaming.

Will be depends on if 10nm used on Sonny Cove is 10nm+ instead of 10nm. I assume if they are ready to release their 10nm, then the performance should be at least on par with 14nm++.

 

[jpiniero]

Still skeptical about this. They talk about increased IPC, but it could be negated by lower clocks than 14nm.

Whiskey Lake U at 15 W doesn't seem to be getting much more than 4.2, so anything close to that should be fine.

 

[Spartak]

There seems to be some confusion on this, but the Sunny Cove cores are 10 nm only. Comet Lake is still good old Skylake.

I've mentioned repeatedly ice lake is due for next year and will feature a wider redesign beyond special purpose. Not sure why you keep harping back to comet lake when we just received so much information about their next architecture called sunny cove (previously known as ice lake).

Its as if the whole media event and reporting is blocked out by you and you keep yelling "comet lake comet lake comet lake!!" With your hands over your ears. I'm out here.

 

[jpiniero]

Icelake is U/Y only; plus Lakefield.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Icelake is U/Y only; plus Lakefield.

And server.

 

[IntelUser2000]

And server.

I think he's saying the initial Icelake is only going to be U and Y. I have some doubts whether we'll see U in the beginning and instead be Comet Lake.

Server is Cooper Lake first, so that's not going to see Icelake for a while. Looks like it'll be the case for desktops.

 

[jpiniero]

And server.

Despite Intel talking about it, I still have doubts we will actually see Icelake Server in any sort of volume and it will be entirely Cooper Lake.

 

[beginner99]

There seems to be some confusion on this, but the Sunny Cove cores are 10 nm only. Comet Lake is still good old Skylake.

Sunny cove is the core uArch name while "skylake" or "comet lake" is the full chip/SOC with multiple such cores. And they also mentioned that cores now will be made process agnostic so it would theoretically be possible to have sunny cove core in a 14nm product but yeah I very much doubt that. Sunny cove is Icelake.

 

[jpiniero]

Sunny cove is the core uArch name while "skylake" or "comet lake" is the full chip/SOC with multiple such cores. And they also mentioned that cores now will be made process agnostic so it would theoretically be possible to have sunny cove core in a 14nm product but yeah I very much doubt that. Sunny cove is Icelake.

I was wondering more if Cooper Lake had the Sunny Cove cores. Doesn't look like it though.