• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Ryzen (Summit Ridge) Benchmarks Thread (use new thread)

Page 108 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
EightySix Four said:
Don't be obtuse. 3.4GHz+ clearly means 3.4GHz or higher, which means the base clock is 3.4GHz.
Click to expand...

I don't read it as that. At all.

Furthemore, given the degree of countering views on the matter in this thread, the only thing clear about it is that it is anything but clear!!!

[Hope your right, but tired of having my fingers burned on AMD powerpoint promises.]
 
sirmo said:
We seem to have it on "good authority" that it will OC ~4.3Ghz. Is your 3.8Ghz your personal guestimate or you know something from the actual real world testing?
Click to expand...
It is not clear if this presumed OC of 4.3Ghz was on all core, but since it was benchmarkable and not a suicide run, we can assume that at least on turbomax with 1 core 4.3Ghz was reachable by that EARLY ES OF 6 MONTHS AGO. Given that and the 3.4+ GHz mark, the graph let me suppose that each line is 1Ghz and the peak is 4.5 Ghz, but maybe AMD cheated with scale and origin to fool all of us...
 
Atari2600 said:
Furthemore, given the degree of countering views on the matter in this thread, the only thing clear about it is that it is anything but clear!!!
Click to expand...

Countering views in a thread in the AT forums are not a measurement of clarity by any means.

Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge the small chance that I could be wrong on this thanks to general marketing BS... but "3.4GHz+" means minimum 3.4GHz, anything else would be absurd.
 
sirmo said:
We seem to have it on "good authority" that it will OC ~4.3Ghz. Is your 3.8Ghz your personal guestimate or you know something from the actual real world testing?
Click to expand...

Max OC for 6900K ( 14nm ) is 4.3Ghz.Max OC for 5960X (22nm) Is 4.8Ghz.also, GF 14nm process is not good as Intel one.so what do you expect for Max OC? at best scenario I think It's 4.1Ghz or perhaps 4Ghz at full load 16 threads (24/7) . I have feeling good about Ryzen, It can be overclocked up to 4.5Ghz with just 8 threads ( 24/7)
 
mikk said:
You have to search for some tests. You can see it even in this test. Important is, you cannot compare the IPC when one CPU does include edram and the other doesn't. Games are not necessarily cache dependent, they are memory and highly IPC dependent as well. Obviously you are really clueless if you ask such questions.
Click to expand...

Obviously you could use better manners.
 
RYZEN-XFR.jpg


Guys, you see that little "Chart for illustrative purposes only" at the bottom? This graphic tells us literally nothing.
 
Arachnotronic said:
What makes you think that the graph starts at zero?
Click to expand...
Nothing. But we spent months counting pixels on the graph of Orochi vs Zen.
Let's add an IF to my considerations, then...

The origin could also not be zero. But since they said 3.4GHz+ i suppose that the lowest point is 3.4GHz...
But anyway you are right: the lowest point lays on the third row. If i am correct, the minimum clock is 3Ghz, so there is something wrong in the interpretation of this graph.
 
bjt2 said:
Nothing. But we spent months counting pixels on the graph of Orochi vs Zen.
Let's add an IF to my considerations, then...

The origin could also not be zero. But since they said 3.4GHz+i suppose that the lowest point is 3.4GHz...
But anyway you are right: the lowest point lays on the third row. If i am correct, the minimum clock is 3Ghz, so there is something wrong in the interpretation of this graph.
Click to expand...

I think the whole point of the graph is to just show that clocks can go above the precision boost frequency max for some period of time. I don't think we should read any more into it than that, either way.
 
Arachnotronic said:
I think the whole point of the graph is to just show that clocks can go above the precision boost frequency max for some period of time. I don't think we should read any more into it than that, either way.
Click to expand...

I think each tic on the chart is a different lucky charm. + lucky charms above clock per time.
 
Arachnotronic said:
I think the whole point of the graph is to just show that clocks can go above the precision boost frequency max for some period of time. I don't think we should read any more into it than that, either way.
Click to expand...
If it goes above it, then it must not have been the max...

This concept seems odd to me. If it can clock higher, then just say what it can clock to with the a stock cooler and then we can figure out that better coolers will give us a little more.
 
LTC8K6 said:
If it goes above it, then it must not have been the max...

This concept seems odd to me. If it can clock higher, then just say what it can clock to with the a stock cooler and then we can figure out that better coolers will give us a little more.
Click to expand...

This is to go above TDP, thermally allowing of course. They obviously can't let it go that high in their 95W stated TDP. The whole point of this is to allow the boost clocks to go above TDP so far as the thermal solution allows it.

That being said, obviously the stated official TDP is 95W, so they are going to keep the normal operating rage within that TDP and any fancy stuff is built on top of that.
 
Well, it doesn't say TDP scales, it just says clock speed scales.

We can obviously clock a few cores higher and a few cores lower, and remain within our TDP envelope.
 
Doom2pro said:
This is to go above TDP, thermally allowing of course. They obviously can't let it go that high in their 95W stated TDP. T
Click to expand...

It will stay within 95W, frequency is boosted according to CPU loading, if the code doesnt max out the trhroughput then there s room to increase frequency without getting above 95W.

RYZEN-Precision-Boost-900x509.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't have AMD products currently, but there should be an OC section in the AMD app for CPU and/or gpu and if i remember well, there you can change also the TDP for the turbo mode... I think that that knob will work also for Zen and will allow basic OC of the CPU just by increasing the target TDP (obviously after a warning)...
 
LTC8K6 said:
If it goes above it, then it must not have been the max...

This concept seems odd to me. If it can clock higher, then just say what it can clock to with the a stock cooler and then we can figure out that better coolers will give us a little more.
Click to expand...

Same as NVIDIA turbo. NVIDIA defines a base, GPU boost, but under most circumstances the Pascal chips run at way higher, even at stock everything.
 
95watts is for little girls, we don't buy manly heat skins, AIO, full loops to put a girly 95watts through it.... be a MAN!

does it IPC does it clock, if you care about anything else then your not a MAN!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top