• 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.

Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 29 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
looncraz said:
They've barely dropped at all. They're still selling for over $900 on fleaBay (on the open auctions).
Click to expand...
i did not realize fleaBay reflects official prices from intel. lol. also i did say in a few days. Intel officially did not say anything other than the usual "wait for 8th gen"
 
formulav8 said:
Not surprising the Anti-AMDer's are hitting full swing. I will never understand how anyone could get that way with anyone, even if money influences it.
Click to expand...

I could understand preferring Intel (as I have for over a decade now) but as a hardware enthusiast I don't understand those guys either.

I am excited that AMD is shaking up the CPU market and making 8 cores mainstream... at a very competitive price. At $499 the R7 1800X was a day 1 preorder for me, no question.
 
formulav8 said:
Not surprising the Anti-AMDer's are hitting full swing. I will never understand how anyone could get that way with anyone, even if money influences it.
Click to expand...

I never understood taking sides. You build enough of a variety of PCs, you end up using both AMD and Intel (or NVIDIA and AMD, for that matter). Even when one clearly holds the performance crown, there are reasons to buy the other's products, be it for value, power efficiency, overclocking performance, or just a good sale.
 
Last edited:
IEC said:
I could understand preferring Intel (as I have for over a decade now) but as a hardware enthusiast I don't understand those guys either.

I am excited that AMD is shaking up the CPU market and making 8 cores mainstream... at a very competitive price. At $499 the R7 1800X was a day 1 preorder for me, no question.
Click to expand...
In some ways it's kind of nice. I don't actually have to click on a "Game X Tested" thread on VC&G to know how cards have performed, I just need to look at who posted it. Saves bunches of time.
 
IEC said:
I could understand preferring Intel (as I have for over a decade now) but as a hardware enthusiast I don't understand those guys either.

I am excited that AMD is shaking up the CPU market and making 8 cores mainstream... at a very competitive price. At $499 the R7 1800X was a day 1 preorder for me, no question.
Click to expand...

I was an AMD fanboy for many years. As it stands, I'm typing this up on a 5820K system. While I would love to sell my Intel gear and get an 1800X, I have plenty of power to tide me over for a year easy while Intel and AMD shake up the market. At worst I will be able to get a 6900K for less than $600 by that time.

I can say that some people are just in it for the money. I can also say that my GF is a children psychologist, and just today worked with a kid that is incredibly gifted but completely unhinged emotionally. He will literally swing a chair at another kid if they finish a math problem before he does. Some people just never got the help they needed. I feel bad for them.
 
Magic Hate Ball said:
You can also identify your most efficient cores. I've noticed on almost all of my chips over the last 5 years (875k, 4770K, others) that at least half the cores run cooler than the other half... and sometimes there's one stand out that's 4-5 degrees cooler with a full 100% stress test from something like Prime95.

Pick those for your higher clocks and keep the rest where they can manage.
Click to expand...
My experience has been different. Though there is a 2-4C difference between cores when idle, when under load they eventually reach the same steady-state temperatures.
 
On that LN2 run.
Sampsa said in io-tech news that it was ran on 5.3GHz before he removed it.
He didnt have picture of it, but my guess is that he asked it from Macci , SF3D or Elmor (they we running it regarding article).
 
Does anyone know if the R7 prices may drop six months after release? Or would I be better of waiting for their six core lineup that would be priced lower?

formulav8 said:
New Not surprising the Anti-AMDer's are hitting full swing. I will never understand how anyone could get that way with anyone, even if money influences it.
Click to expand...
The way I see it is they want competition, but only if Intel lowers their mainstream and HEDT prices in response, and thus they go with Intel once again, not choosing the AMD product be it as good or superior to Intel's.
 
WR-HW95 said:
On that LN2 run.
Sampsa said in io-tech news that it was ran on 5.3GHz before he removed it.
He didnt have picture of it, but my guess is that he asked it from Macci , SF3D or Elmor (they we running it regarding article).
Click to expand...

I heard that as well. The math suggested that had to be the clock-speed for the WR Cinebench score.

That is ~80MHz faster than the 6900k world record (well, on HWBot).

Would be nice to know if they tried for higher if they simply ran out of time, or that was all they could achieve from the chips they had on hand. It was obvious they had done other runs.
 
inf64 said:
If that WR result in CB was achieved @ 5.3Ghz than OCing bus and memory/NB yields roughly 5% more performance at the same relative clock, based on 1700X and 1800X CB numbers.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why I chose to investigate clock scaling when I did my Excavator interrogation.

Okay, so far all of these results have been obtained at 3Ghz. But BOTH of these CPUs run at up to 3.8Ghz... and frequency scaling isn't always perfectly linear.

Sometimes going up 25% in frequency gives you 25% improvement. Sometimes it brings you 5%. And, sometimes, you will get just a little more than you think you should due to certain time-based latencies intermixing the clock-based latencies and a certain synergy occuring that gives you a little extra something something.
Click to expand...

Source: http://excavator.looncraz.net/page5.html

If Zen's L3 is setup the way I think, positive scaling with clock speeds is possible.
 
From the screen it seems that they upped the bus to 140MHz and the CPU multiplier was under 40x, so probabily untouched. I doubt that they moved the NB multiplier and probabily they only lowered the ram multiplier. In this situation the scaling is about linear with a few percent less... 300MHz on 5.5GHz is 5%... I find implausible an extra 5% increase just fiddling with multipliers... I think that default multipliers are already choosen to maximize performance... The only hypothesis is that they upped the bus and lowered the ram and left turbo and XFR activated. They took the screen at idle, where the multiplier was jumping between default (36x) and in the very instant of the screen was 37.5x or so (i don't remember) but during the run could have also jumped to 39-41x due to the very low temperature granted by the LN2... 140x39 is 5460...
 
bjt2 said:
From the screen it seems that they upped the bus to 140MHz and the CPU multiplier was under 40x, so probabily untouched.
Click to expand...
Screen is not relevant to the run in question, bear that in mind. In fact, the 5.2Ghz run is from 2300ish score.
bjt2 said:
I think that default multipliers are already choosen to maximize performance...
Click to expand...
Sort of naive thought, don't you think?
bjt2 said:
due to the very low temperature granted by the LN2... 140x39 is 5460...
Click to expand...
Glad to let you know that XFR is TDP-limited as well and LN2 OC at this voltage breaks any and all TDP limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top