EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 FTW3 Ultra review
Corsair 5000D PC Chassis Review
NZXT Kraken X63 RGB Review
ASUS Radeon RX 6900 XT STRIX OC LC Review
TerraMaster F5-221 NAS Review
MSI Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming X TRIO Review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6800 NITRO+ review
Corsair HS70 Bluetooth Headset Review
MSI MEG X570 Unify review
Scythe Ninja 5 air cooler review
First Ryzen Quad Cores Will not Pass 3.2 GHz?
The French Canard PC in a tweet stated that the first Ryzen Quad Cores processors would not exceed 3.2 GHz and will get a lower clock-frequency then expected. You should take this information with a grain of salt alright, but Canard PC in the past has proved to be a fairly reliable source of information.
It is unknown what the performance level of the processors will be, obviously the units will get four cores. Also unknown is if these are the 8-core models with 4 cores disabled. We doubt that given the nature of the architecture. The low base clock frequencies seem really unrealistic though considering the 8-core parts achieve higher clock frequencies.
Ryzen 5 would be released in Q2 this year, Ryzen 3 is expected to launch in the 2nd half of this year.
baasgene
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 2015-07-02
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 2015-07-02
#5405876 Posted on: 03/13/2017 08:50 AM
Canard, if as reliable in the past as you say, is ripping up their integrity posting such bogus. The chances of this being legit is probably 5%.
But if this was perhaps a mobile chip..
Canard, if as reliable in the past as you say, is ripping up their integrity posting such bogus. The chances of this being legit is probably 5%.
But if this was perhaps a mobile chip..
Romulus_ut3
Senior Member
Posts: 670
Joined: 2013-09-18
Senior Member
Posts: 670
Joined: 2013-09-18
#5405877 Posted on: 03/13/2017 08:53 AM
This actually makes sense.
You're getting a genuine Quad Core against intel's G4XX line up which consists of two physical cores and HyperThreading.
Get a B350 motherboard and clock it up to a solid 3.8~4.0 GHz and you have a really sweet deal for the price AMD sets.
I can't see these Quad Cores coming out with a Base Clock of anywhere near 4.0 GHz. A Base Clock around 3.3 GHz to 3.6 GHz with boost up to 4.2 GHz would be ideal, but I am sure these Quad Cores are going to be the bargain deal. I expect the 4 Core 8 thread counterpart to take on the likes of the Core i3 K SKU and the 6 Core 12 thread to take on the likes of Core i5 and maybe 7700K, though I think AMD's original intended competitor against the 7700K is the RyZen 7 1700.
This actually makes sense.
You're getting a genuine Quad Core against intel's G4XX line up which consists of two physical cores and HyperThreading.
Get a B350 motherboard and clock it up to a solid 3.8~4.0 GHz and you have a really sweet deal for the price AMD sets.
I can't see these Quad Cores coming out with a Base Clock of anywhere near 4.0 GHz. A Base Clock around 3.3 GHz to 3.6 GHz with boost up to 4.2 GHz would be ideal, but I am sure these Quad Cores are going to be the bargain deal. I expect the 4 Core 8 thread counterpart to take on the likes of the Core i3 K SKU and the 6 Core 12 thread to take on the likes of Core i5 and maybe 7700K, though I think AMD's original intended competitor against the 7700K is the RyZen 7 1700.
isidore
Senior Member
Posts: 6263
Joined: 2006-02-01
Senior Member
Posts: 6263
Joined: 2006-02-01
#5405882 Posted on: 03/13/2017 09:10 AM
It makes sense. Of course AMD doesn't want it's 4 core CPU to beat the 6 and 8 in single thread performance out of the box.
I do however expect it to clock higher than 4Ghz and that's were the sweet spot will be.
It makes sense. Of course AMD doesn't want it's 4 core CPU to beat the 6 and 8 in single thread performance out of the box.
I do however expect it to clock higher than 4Ghz and that's were the sweet spot will be.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 2203
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 2203
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5405886 Posted on: 03/13/2017 09:16 AM
This actually makes sense.
It might make sense if the lower clocks were still enough to beat Intel CPUs in real applications including gaming. However, Ryzen 7 was kind of lacking in gaming, and nobody knows yet how much they can fix that. Higher clocks would automatically help there. Higher clocks are also totally free performance for the manufacturer as long as the processor can handle it (Nvidia's Pascal is the best example of this in my opinion).
It's pointless for them to artificially slow down the 4-core. It's not going to compete with their own 6-core anyway.
This actually makes sense.
It might make sense if the lower clocks were still enough to beat Intel CPUs in real applications including gaming. However, Ryzen 7 was kind of lacking in gaming, and nobody knows yet how much they can fix that. Higher clocks would automatically help there. Higher clocks are also totally free performance for the manufacturer as long as the processor can handle it (Nvidia's Pascal is the best example of this in my opinion).
It's pointless for them to artificially slow down the 4-core. It's not going to compete with their own 6-core anyway.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1451
Joined: 2016-08-01
if those clock under 4ghz after you overclock this is not a good sign seems weird though