Intel NUC 13 Pro (Arena Canyon) review
Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB (FE) review
Ryzen 7 1800X Overclocked to 5.8GHz Breaks Cinebench R15 World Record at 5.36GHz
During the Ryzen technology event, overclockers broke two frequency world records with the flagship Ryzen 7 1800X. I was actually there at that precise moment they reached the tweak.
Der8auer pushed the Ryzen 7 1800X to 5.8GHz on an insane voltage of 1.97v, and officially claimed the frequency world record on HWBot. Der8auer achieved this feat using the liquid nitrogen, with test bench featuring an Asus Crosshair VI Hero motherboard and 16GB of 2400MHz DDR4 CL11 memory.
The other Ryzen 7 frequency world record was achieved by the Swedish overclocker Elmor. He used LN2 to push his Ryzen 7 1800X to 5.36GHz on all 8 cores. The CPU scored 2454 points in the Cinebench R15’s multi-threaded test, breaking the previous world record by 9 points which was achieved with an Intel Core i7 5960X overclocked to 6GHz.
This is pretty impressive considering the fact that Ryzen 7 1800X is clocked at over 600MHz less than the i7 5960X, but it’s still able to outperform that latter. Not only this but the i7 5960X also has the advantage of featuring quad-channel DDDR4 memory compared to Ryzen’s dual channel.
I included some photos that I took just 10 minutes before they hit the WR.
Review: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor - 03/06/2017 09:34 AM
In this review we take a look at a new Ryzen series processor from AMD. We peek at the Ryzen 7 1800X, a 499 USD processor that has eight cores and 16 threads (SMT). The 8-core processor will be tested...
Review: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X processor - 03/03/2017 02:44 PM
We tested the Flagship processor, now we review the Ryzen 7 1700X Processor that is a 100 bucks cheaper. The 8-core processor will be tested on an X370 motherboard. Read the review here....
First Ryzen 7 1700X Review finds its way onto the web - 03/01/2017 05:04 PM
Iranian website ShahrSakhtafzar just went online with a review on the Ryzen 7 1700X processor. Shahryar states that they did not receive the processor and motherboard from AMD, but was obtained (li...
AMD Ryzen Unboxing video - A peek at the Ryzen 7 1800X Reviewer Kit from AMD - 02/27/2017 06:19 PM
While videos and unboxing videos really aren't our thing (hey geeky looking Dutch guy with bad English accent) some of you have requested an unvoxing video of the AMD Ryzen press kit. We're allowed ...
AMD's Ryzen 7 1700X Caught on Camera and some Benchies - 02/22/2017 04:27 AM
Asia based XFastest is pimping some Ryzen 7 1700X processor photos, showing the heatspreader and pin pins. The photos you can see have a last-gen FX CPU on the left side for comparison. ...
fantaskarsef
Senior Member
Posts: 14625
Joined: 2014-07-21
Senior Member
Posts: 14625
Joined: 2014-07-21
#5402344 Posted on: 03/06/2017 11:34 AM
WHEN games will support more than 8 threads, they will be. Until then, they are just another useless powerful fancy CPU outclassed by a highly clocking, high IPC quad core. I completely agree that games need to make more use of multi threaded computing, IF it makes sense for the game.
But with more multi threading in CPUs for reduced overhead (dx12) and way more work for devs to put in to dx12 adaption of their engines and games, currently I see devs more jumping onto the API construction side than to favour multi threading right now. We shall see though.
And you guys questioning a 1080 at 1080p have never experienced putting your ig details to the lowest to get 300fps in CS:GO, it's what pros do!
LN2 overclocking. Strange worlds.
it is really outrageous the way people judge a new cpu with current games . They often fail to see that with such cpus pushed to the mainstream users game developers will be able to design games to work with more cores. There is also another thing , up to now , coding with multiple cpus is a nightmare ;thus, the need for more optimized game engines is required. All in all , the new AMd cpus simply are gamer changer. Despite the fact that I love intel product , this to me means cpus will be a lot cheaper and 2018 will bring interesting changes
WHEN games will support more than 8 threads, they will be. Until then, they are just another useless powerful fancy CPU outclassed by a highly clocking, high IPC quad core. I completely agree that games need to make more use of multi threaded computing, IF it makes sense for the game.
But with more multi threading in CPUs for reduced overhead (dx12) and way more work for devs to put in to dx12 adaption of their engines and games, currently I see devs more jumping onto the API construction side than to favour multi threading right now. We shall see though.
And you guys questioning a 1080 at 1080p have never experienced putting your ig details to the lowest to get 300fps in CS:GO, it's what pros do!
8 Cores @ 5,8 GHz @ 0.8 Volts
LN2 overclocking. Strange worlds.
yasamoka
Senior Member
Posts: 4872
Joined: 2009-08-29
Senior Member
Posts: 4872
Joined: 2009-08-29
#5402354 Posted on: 03/06/2017 11:50 AM
Yeah, it makes so much sense to get GTX 1080 and play 1080p.
I'll just spend $650 to play on my $100 monitor @1080p. Yeah. Logic, bitch
It really doesn't matter what processor you have in that case. I think i5 from 2012 would be just fine
Yes, conveniently ignore the existence of 1080p 144Hz monitors and the latest 240Hz monitor while propagating the myth that AMD's Ryzen gaming performance is subpar (relative to what Intel is cranking out) ONLY at 1080p as if it's the resolution and not the higher framerate that's accompanying it.
Hint, on multi-GPU, faster single GPUs in the future, and games with high framerate, such as CS:GO, the difference would be more pronounced (drastic in the case of CS:GO - go and check out the benchmarks).
Now, if you come back and tell me but hey, 300 FPS vs. 450 FPS, both are ridiculously high, then I'm telling you beforehand that you did not get what's going on.
Yeah, it makes so much sense to get GTX 1080 and play 1080p.
I'll just spend $650 to play on my $100 monitor @1080p. Yeah. Logic, bitch
It really doesn't matter what processor you have in that case. I think i5 from 2012 would be just fine
Yes, conveniently ignore the existence of 1080p 144Hz monitors and the latest 240Hz monitor while propagating the myth that AMD's Ryzen gaming performance is subpar (relative to what Intel is cranking out) ONLY at 1080p as if it's the resolution and not the higher framerate that's accompanying it.
Hint, on multi-GPU, faster single GPUs in the future, and games with high framerate, such as CS:GO, the difference would be more pronounced (drastic in the case of CS:GO - go and check out the benchmarks).
Now, if you come back and tell me but hey, 300 FPS vs. 450 FPS, both are ridiculously high, then I'm telling you beforehand that you did not get what's going on.
Zeka
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: 2016-09-27
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: 2016-09-27
#5402369 Posted on: 03/06/2017 12:20 PM
Yes, conveniently ignore the existence of 1080p 144Hz monitors and the latest 240Hz monitor while propagating the myth that AMD's Ryzen gaming performance is subpar (relative to what Intel is cranking out) ONLY at 1080p as if it's the resolution and not the higher framerate that's accompanying it.
Hint, on multi-GPU, faster single GPUs in the future, and games with high framerate, such as CS:GO, the difference would be more pronounced (drastic in the case of CS:GO - go and check out the benchmarks).
Now, if you come back and tell me but hey, 300 FPS vs. 450 FPS, both are ridiculously high, then I'm telling you beforehand that you did not get what's going on.
I should have said that it doesn't make sense for me. I don't care about 300FPS in CS:GO or 144 fps for that matter. For me, 100FPS is just fine for whatever game I play.
What's more, I never said Ryzen game performance is subpar, I believe it's perfectly fine for most users that will play 1080p or 1440p or higher.
Also, I believe with time and some patches, Ryzen will catch up with Intel in games, because performance in every other aspect is on par with highest offers from Intel.
Yes, conveniently ignore the existence of 1080p 144Hz monitors and the latest 240Hz monitor while propagating the myth that AMD's Ryzen gaming performance is subpar (relative to what Intel is cranking out) ONLY at 1080p as if it's the resolution and not the higher framerate that's accompanying it.
Hint, on multi-GPU, faster single GPUs in the future, and games with high framerate, such as CS:GO, the difference would be more pronounced (drastic in the case of CS:GO - go and check out the benchmarks).
Now, if you come back and tell me but hey, 300 FPS vs. 450 FPS, both are ridiculously high, then I'm telling you beforehand that you did not get what's going on.
I should have said that it doesn't make sense for me. I don't care about 300FPS in CS:GO or 144 fps for that matter. For me, 100FPS is just fine for whatever game I play.
What's more, I never said Ryzen game performance is subpar, I believe it's perfectly fine for most users that will play 1080p or 1440p or higher.
Also, I believe with time and some patches, Ryzen will catch up with Intel in games, because performance in every other aspect is on par with highest offers from Intel.
Camaxide
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 2016-05-29
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 2016-05-29
#5402385 Posted on: 03/06/2017 12:59 PM
Now, if you come back and tell me but hey, 300 FPS vs. 450 FPS, both are ridiculously high, then I'm telling you beforehand that you did not get what's going on.
That however has nothing much to do with GPU's but shows how poor the internal engine is at CS:GO - if you create a game engine that needs to run at 300+ FPS to go smooth, then you should just scrap that engine and try again..
For 99,9% of all games in existence going that high on FPS makes no sense, so it is really a quite poor statement to go by - even though CS:GO is still a popular game.
In general most would agree that for games, if your minimum FPS is higher than your monitor refresh rate, you are all covered.
Now, if you come back and tell me but hey, 300 FPS vs. 450 FPS, both are ridiculously high, then I'm telling you beforehand that you did not get what's going on.
That however has nothing much to do with GPU's but shows how poor the internal engine is at CS:GO - if you create a game engine that needs to run at 300+ FPS to go smooth, then you should just scrap that engine and try again..
For 99,9% of all games in existence going that high on FPS makes no sense, so it is really a quite poor statement to go by - even though CS:GO is still a popular game.
In general most would agree that for games, if your minimum FPS is higher than your monitor refresh rate, you are all covered.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 8866
Joined: 2010-08-28
8 Cores @ 5,8 GHz @ 0.8 Volts