My brain has the consistency of extremely overboiled cabbage today..Please humour me.There is no linear relation to the number of utilized cores (i.e core dependent boost bins like on Intel). Just MSCF (maximum single core frequency) and MACF (maximum all core frequency).
I'm wondering if XFR offers something manual OC can't really properly provide, at least not with any reasonable convinience.
WowHere are a bunch of benchmarks. These are taken directly from passmark PerformanceTest 9.0. Note: Actual clocks are not listed on these graphs. The true clocks are as follows:
The good news is that turbo for the Ryzen is apparently disabled.
Without a source, I am not going to allow these "benchmarks"
Please add a source.
And what more can be done? yesterday I posted how CPUZ and Passmark detected no Boost when I turned it off in BIOS, today I posted how AIDA, Passmark are able to detect a standard Boost and manipulated boost.Based on comparing apples to oranges? Sigh, you really like these comparisons..
AMD's TSC has been running at P0 (highest non boosted, i.e base state) frequency since Bulldozer (still applies to Zen). Unless you overclock (i.e modify the P0 PState for higher frequency) the OS and all of the other programs which do not constantly monitor the frequency by using other counters (e.g. HPET) detect the base clock speed. Look at Cinebench for example. For AMD FX-8350 or FX-8370 parts it detects the CPU speed as 4.0GHz (base) regardless if turbo is enabled or not.And what more can be done? yesterday I posted how CPUZ and Passmark detected no Boost when I turned it off in BIOS, today I posted how AIDA, Passmark are able to detect a standard Boost and manipulated boost.
Why is no boost profile showing on any of the AMD parts database? The likely reason is it was disabled in BIOS.
Another indication is the benches it did well at followed the Benches used in Handbrake, Blender and the gaming leaks which shows Ryzen at low frequency scoring high, this was also shown up in Passmarks Integer, Floating Point and Singlethread hardly different to what has been seen with AMD using a 3.4Ghz base clock which puts in in that Haswell to slightly above range clock for clock, this was not a far fetched expectation, just one that everyone with some kind of inuendo has tried to kill anticipation with.
You can believe that or invisible turbos but I think something is happening and this is far from a Bulldozer release and we haven't even got one X370 with final sample bench yet, just some gimped runs.
Exactly.I'm wondering if XFR offers something manual OC can't really properly provide, at least not with any reasonable convinience.
For example, if all cores can turbo up to 4.5, but a single core can do 4.8. You can always go into the BIOS and disable the rest of the cores to reach that 4.8, and then switch back to 4.5 with all cores when you're done with the task, but that would be incredibly annoying for everyday use.
If XFR can detect load on a specific core and boost it to the edge, while powering down the rest of the cores to a level that allows that single core to reach 4.8GHz, then it does something that would be straight up annoying to attempt in manual overclocking.
Basically, if XFR can optimize itself for specific application loads, then I'm getting a SKU with one. As fun as overclocking is, I'd like for my computer to be able to achieve optimal performance in whatever scenario is thrown at it. If manual overclocking is the way to do it, then I'll manually overclock. If XFR can provide that, then I'll use XFR.
I'm not entirely sure since some models have XFR while others don't.So do they advertise MACF as "base"? Being "max" - this could mean slightly lower clocks for heavy loads (e.g. Prime95 w/ SMT).
my FX 6300 us advertised as 3.5/3.9Ghz. but it turbos to 3.9Ghz on all core and 4.1 on single core.4.0 GHz should be maximum single core frequency, maximum all core frequency is probably not going to be advertised (that's how it is on FX/APUs).
i hope you are not correct on this oneNo.
3.6GHz MACF and 4.0GHz MSCF.
XFR is better than that type of OC. Is a continuos self calibration of p-states, based on temperature and load. No other OC mean can beat it, at same TDP.XFR doesnt really interest me. It bothered me with my 960 on the GPU side of the spectrum.
What I want, is pstate control, just like Wattman gives me for AMD gpus or just like good ol' phenommsrtweaker or Stilt's software (a shame that it wasn't further developed).
Exactly: it monitors actual temperature 8that depends also of previous loads, ambient and obviously cooler) to clock to the max supported clock in THAT moment.Exactly.
I sorta tried that with PD, but ultimately, I failed.
I defined turbo to 4.5Ghz on half cores and 5.0GHz on single core as well as 4.4 base clock. Ofc that required voltage adjustement. +0.15 voltage offset seems to work nice without turbo enabled, but with turbo, it boosted already high turbo voltage above 1.5Volts, which was not something I'm comfortable.
Lowering offset voltage to 0.1V turned out to be a disaster. While a 5.0GHz single core turbo was nice and stable at 1.5V, the base clock was not. It was running 4.4 below 1.3V, and was unstable. After a lot of tweaking, trial and error, it was apparent that I would need to go with my base clock below 4.0GHz or live with a crazy single core boost above 1.5V. Both of which sucked. So now, Im running flat 4.5 without turbo at all...
If XFR can do that fine tuning automagically and actually adjust itself properly (something I couldn't do manually) then it is simply amazing for everybody.
Yup, the devil is in the details. The concept sounds incredible, the execution however will decide how it will pan out.^Sounds good on paper, remains to be seen how it performs in reality.
Imagine reviews in deep winter compared to summer!
Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)
I'm not entirely sure since some models have XFR while others don't.
Base clock is still base clock, regardless. If a SKU has 3.4GHz base clock and no XFR, then that is the MACF at the same time.
I can almost imagine XFR refusing to hit advertised boost clocks at summer.Imagine reviews in deep winter compared to summer!
I'll reveal you a terrible secret: it is not motherboard that reports clocks.If it cannot detect turbo, either it is off or that motherboard cannot detect it
Well acording to passmarkIf it can reach 4.5GHz and it has higher IPC than IvyBridge at those prices, then ill get a 6-Core RYZEN with a mini-iTX X300 mobo to replace my Core i7 3770K @ 4.4GHz.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Discussion Zen 5 Discussion (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 8000)||CPUs and Overclocking||29|
|Question Are Ryzen 5000 prices very erratic elsewhere too?||CPUs and Overclocking||13|
|K||Discussion Ryzen CPU with Xilinx AI Engine: in the lab for testing!||CPUs and Overclocking||6|
|G||Question AMD moves Ryzen Zen 4 launch to same day as Intel's Raptor Lake||CPUs and Overclocking||17|
|L||Question Core i5-1235U vs Ryzen 5500u which one is better for laptop ?||CPUs and Overclocking||16|
|Discussion Zen 5 Discussion (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 8000)|
|Question Are Ryzen 5000 prices very erratic elsewhere too?|
|Discussion Ryzen CPU with Xilinx AI Engine: in the lab for testing!|
|Question AMD moves Ryzen Zen 4 launch to same day as Intel's Raptor Lake|
|Question Core i5-1235U vs Ryzen 5500u which one is better for laptop ?|