ASUS TUF Gaming B760-PLUS WIFI D4 review
Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
MSI VIGOR GK71 SONIC Blue keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor 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 09:50 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: 763
Joined: 2013-09-18
Senior Member
Posts: 763
Joined: 2013-09-18
#5405877 Posted on: 03/13/2017 09:53 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: 6276
Joined: 2006-02-01
Senior Member
Posts: 6276
Joined: 2006-02-01
#5405882 Posted on: 03/13/2017 10:10 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: 3363
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 3363
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5405886 Posted on: 03/13/2017 10:16 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: 2983
Joined: 2016-08-01
if those clock under 4ghz after you overclock this is not a good sign seems weird though