AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Desktop Processor Spotted on ASUS Crosshair VII HERO Mobo

#5512034 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:28 PM

---

Yeah... we'll see. I was stating that clock has everything to do with it, while IPC will be an insignificant increase.
We're debating over things too far from our grasp. I'm still hoping for better clock speeds at the high end. :p
Why does clock speed have everything (or anything) to do with it? I legitimately don't understand why that matters since you're just going to override it anyway. Not only is the IPC increase objectively more important than factory clocks, but it seems to offer a greater performance improvement than the increase in clock speeds.

Put it in this perspective:
A 4GHz Ryzen 1600 will be slower than a 4GHz Ryzen 2600, assuming all other hardware and specs are the same. Neither CPU XFR speeds reach 4GHz out-of-the-box. If the 2600 can't clock past 4GHz (much like the 1600) then the 2600 is still a better product. At this point, what is the relevance or significance of the base clocks? Meanwhile, if the new fabrication node allows the 2600 to OC beyond to, let's say 4.5GHz, then the base clocks are 100% irrelevant (as an overclocker).

If you don't intend to OC and you want to use the stock heatsink, you want the CPU to remain within the 65W TDP. Though the transistors were shrunk by around 15%, that doesn't mean you can increase clocks by 15% and expect the same wattage.

It's because not all people overclock their CPU.
I often like to leave things the way they were intended to be used, just because it gives me a 'stock/guarantee' kind of reassurance. Weird, huh?
So buy the 2600X... that surely will come with a higher clock speed. Problem solved.

Also, I'm sure you could bump the frequency a few hundred MHz without tweaking anything else (not even voltage) and you'll be rock solid.

EDIT:
Overclocking isn't scary nowadays. Besides, if you're getting RAM above 2400MHz (which you should) you have to overclock that anyway, since by default most boards won't go beyond that.

#5512038 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:44 PM

---

Why does clock speed have everything (or anything) to do with it? I legitimately don't understand why that matters since you're just going to override it anyway. Not only is the IPC increase objectively more important than factory clocks, but it seems to offer a greater performance improvement than the increase in clock speeds.

Put it in this perspective:
A 4GHz Ryzen 1600 will be slower than a 4GHz Ryzen 2600, assuming all other hardware and specs are the same. Neither CPU XFR speeds reach 4GHz out-of-the-box. If the 2600 can't clock past 4GHz (much like the 1600) then the 2600 is still a better product. At this point, what is the relevance or significance of the base clocks? Meanwhile, if the new fabrication node allows the 2600 to OC beyond to, let's say 4.5GHz, then the base clocks are 100% irrelevant (as an overclocker).

If you don't intend to OC and you want to use the stock heatsink, you want the CPU to remain within the 65W TDP. Though the transistors were shrunk by around 15%, that doesn't mean you can increase clocks by 15% and expect the same wattage.


So buy the 2600X... that surely will come with a higher clock speed. Problem solved.

Also, I'm sure you could bump the frequency a few hundred MHz without tweaking anything else (not even voltage) and you'll be rock solid.


Wow... lots of questions, little time. Here it goes:
1.) IPC improvement will probably be minimal - it's just a refresh - but I am really hoping to be wrong.
2.) if the IPC increase is minimal, Ryzen 1600 and Ryzen 2600 will only be differentiated by clock speeds.
3.) if 90% of the processors overclock way better than previous generation (say from 3.5 GHz stock - to 4.5 OC), don't you think that AMD will ship them 'stock' with more base frequency than 3.5 ? ...to have a better overall product?
4.) Base clock is significant because 80-90% of the people DON'T overclock (OEMs play a major role here).

#5512041 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:47 PM

---

[QUOTE="Overclocking isn't scary nowadays. Besides, if you're getting RAM above 2400MHz (which you should) you have to overclock that anyway, since by default most boards won't go beyond that.

Nobody here said it is. But some people like their 'cars' stock, and some like to tune and tweak them until nothing is original anymore. There's people and people.

#5512045 Posted on: 01/18/2018 06:03 PM

---

What's the question? But as discussed earlier, these CPUs seem to have a roughly 15% performance improvement. So even if the IPC was negligible, what's the difference between a 15% overall improvement involving a 6% clock increase vs just a 15% clock increase? The IPC improvement is better, because that means more performance for fewer watts.

In which case get the 1600X.

That's a good point and one I've considered myself. But remember, this is the non-X variant; the one that's binned with supposedly worse quality silicon. If the 1600X with it's boost clocks breach 4GHz, that could be promising.

And most people don't need the higher speed, especially when you've got 12 threads. A 3.5GHz quad core without SMT/HT is plenty fast enough for the average person. Most people who don't intend to OC, including OEMs, also don't buy enthusiast-grade motherboards designed for overclocking. Keep in mind laptops and tablets tend to be much more popular than desktops and very rarely will you see those breach 3GHz and/or 8 threads, while also being affordable or portable.
Clocks aren't that important to most people.

I get what you're saying, but the difference here is you can pay hundreds of dollars for a 5% improvement in a car. It takes a lot of time, and may void your warranty. If you do it wrong, you just screwed yourself out of what could be your only means of transportation. If you have a B or X series AMD motherboard, you can overclock for free and relatively worry free. Unless you do something really stupid like bump the voltage to 1.6v, worst case scenario, you just reset the CMOS. I hear the stock AMD heatsinks are suitable for minor overclocks.

#5512071 Posted on: 01/18/2018 07:30 PM

---

Just 6% ??? C'mon AMD... daf*k is this?
Dear God... I've waited a billion years for the Ryzen refresh, I still have to wait... and it's just 6%.
At least the X470 platform I hope will be better for PCI-e & Memory... I hope!
I5 8500 seems faster and a better option already. I expected better performance from Zen's optimized refresh line-up tbh.
This is why people shouldn't hype. It was said over and over again that the gains would be around 5 to 10%.
It's just a refresh, fixing bugs and optimizing the existing arch in a year time frame, using a slightly better fab process. For me 6% improvement on a stable platform is a good deal.
Meanwhile Zen 2 design is finished and on track for next year, and Intel finally woke up and started adding more cores. So there will be plenty to chose from in the future.

#5512116 Posted on: 01/18/2018 10:24 PM

---

200mhz base clock freq increase is heartening, but the OC results are going to be the end-all be-all of wat AMD has achieved on this respin, in my opinion...not because ~muh mhz~ but because of the maturity of the power consumption (& by extension, wat that implies for zen2). thats still very much in the air, but im still perking up at this tidbit of news we have here regardless

this is definitely an engineering sample, idk how or why thats up for debate. as ive mentioned before, obtaining clock speeds north of 4ghz will require ironing out the power spike after ~1.3v. after 3.8ghz the original zen process stops scaling linearly in wattage consumption, & beyond 1.3v wattage jumps abruptly - both of which lead to destabilization. cooling helps to a degree (ha ha) but the die simply cant dissipate the spike regardless of cooling method or operating temperature.



it went from 14nm to 12nm process. the fact that youre disappointed with a completely par-for-the-course ~10% IPC gain for wat amounts to a fab optimization instead of a legit die shrink is very telling. the fact that you expected 4.5ghz stock just makes your complaints seem further absurd.

#5512117 Posted on: 01/18/2018 10:34 PM

---

You have to remember this is just a refresh not a new platform cpu.AMD said they were going to improve on the "low hanging fruit" on this release, so new age of them. This is really for the people that didn't pull the trigger for the original Ryzen release. I don't see many Ryzen owners dumping their system for this refresh. I never did pull the trigger on the original release because of all the hiccups that needed to be sorted out. And I honestly don't know if I will pull the trigger on this release because it just looks like a rev'd up and polished Ryzen 101. I'm not saying that it isn't a good product, in fact I see them smacking Intel in the chops again in sales. But it's not the whizbang many AMD fans are looking for right now. You will also be getting a Threadripper refresh in second half of 2018. Amd has claimed that the Zen 2 platform design has already been completed. So I foresee an early 2019 release for their Zen 2 7nm cpu. But it gives Intel a whole year to bring to market their whizbang cpu's.

#5512133 Posted on: 01/18/2018 11:15 PM

---

For me what really matters about the next Ryzen is the gaming performance. If they offer good performance in that area, then AMD has a winner in their hands. If it performs well in everything else but games like the first Ryzen then it will be a failure, for me personally because i only need a powerfull CPU for gaming. For everything else even a dual core is more than enough...

#5512145 Posted on: 01/19/2018 12:15 AM

---

So it scores 15% better than a 1600 with a 6% clock increase? Who has confirmed that? Maybe Im misunderstanding, but if we get a 9% IPC increase with this "refresh" , thats absolutely phenomenal because even AMD hinted that other than improving the memory controller there are little to no arch changes for Zen +.

This would mean a 4GHz Zen+ would be equivalent to a 4.3GHz Zen? Guys if thats the case its going to be very good news if you can OC a Zen+ to 4.3 or 4.4GHz.....

#5512153 Posted on: 01/19/2018 12:39 AM

---

This will be what I get to replace my 1500x. Should be a nice bump and easy 4ghz oc with the refresh. If 4.2 happens, that would be nice.

I see warlord is still AMD hating shrill eventhough he uses their hardware. Talks like a zen refresh is garbage but has a 860k cpu hahahaha.

#5512173 Posted on: 01/19/2018 02:20 AM

---

You say that as though Ryzen's gaming perfomance is bad; it's just simply "adequate". It started out a bit suspiciously bad, but after the AGESA 1006 update, Ryzen's gaming performance became sufficient (at least to non-elitists). Sure, in most cases it's consistently a few FPS behind Intel even where the GPU is the bottleneck, but unless you're gaming above 90FPS, the differences are kind of irrelevant.
All that being said, I would find it a bit odd if you find a dual core (with or without HT) to be "more than enough" for modern games, but ranging from 5-15FPS lower than Intel once you breach 100FPS isn't enough?

Anyway, when it comes to VR or 120Hz+ gaming, I'd still recommend Intel. If low latency and the highest possibly frame rates are your goal, you go for what's the best, and that crown currently belongs to Intel.

#5512201 Posted on: 01/19/2018 07:19 AM

---

You say that as though Ryzen's gaming perfomance is bad; it's just simply "adequate". It started out a bit suspiciously bad, but after the AGESA 1006 update, Ryzen's gaming performance became sufficient (at least to non-elitists). Sure, in most cases it's consistently a few FPS behind Intel even where the GPU is the bottleneck, but unless you're gaming above 90FPS, the differences are kind of irrelevant.
All that being said, I would find it a bit odd if you find a dual core (with or without HT) to be "more than enough" for modern games, but ranging from 5-15FPS lower than Intel once you breach 100FPS isn't enough?

Anyway, when it comes to VR or 120Hz+ gaming, I'd still recommend Intel. If low latency and the highest possibly frame rates are your goal, you go for what's the best, and that crown currently belongs to Intel.
Honestly, people are making too much fuzz about Ryzen gaming performance.As you said it is adequate, i would go more and said it is more then adequate. It is top notch for 99% of users and use cases in gaming when we take into the account that vast vast majority of people game on 60Hz monitors,

#5512203 Posted on: 01/19/2018 07:46 AM

---

its simply extrapolated from the sandra bench

#5512204 Posted on: 01/19/2018 07:55 AM

---

This will be what I get to replace my 1500x. Should be a nice bump and easy 4ghz oc with the refresh. If 4.2 happens, that would be nice.

I see warlord is still AMD hating shrill eventhough he uses their hardware. Talks like a zen refresh is garbage but has a 860k cpu hahahaha.

Well at least I don't have a worse one. It was the best athlon before 870/880 release. And FM2+ was a newer platform than AM3. I didn't see a better choice back then mate. And I don't hate AMD, just I don't know if it a wise buy. Are you saying 1600/1600X is better than i5 8400 in applications not needed twice the thread's count?

#5512213 Posted on: 01/19/2018 08:22 AM

---

So if the difference in performance vs 1600 is that 15% with 6% AMD fairs better then Intel on it's refreshes that brought nearly 0 IPC gain with some clock gain.

Now if they can get their clocks up that would be awesome surely. But we will see if we get anywhere near 4.5. If we do I could even replace my current cpu then. But most likely will end up waiting for Ryzen 2. Current Ryzens gaming performance is fine, it can only go up from there anyways.