G.Skill TridentZ5 RGB DDR5 7200 CL34 2x16 GB review
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
YouTube LiveStream Shows Benchmarks AMD Ryzen 2700X to be 10% faster
On Youtube, a video was posted (Livestream) of a user showing AMD Ryzen 2700X and some results. This means that some people already have been seeded the new Zen+ processors, Pinnacle Ridge.
The video was however removed again but did seem to be the real deal. The results, however, have not been lost, as hey anything that gets out of the web, remains there. The Ryzen 7 2700X processor scored 1790 point in CineBench CB15, a Ryzen 7 1800X scores roughly 1620 points.
So that is give or take roughly a performance increase of 10%, not bad. That result was based on a default clock frequency, the guy also posted a tweaked result, showing 1891 points with all cores at 4.2 GHz.
Interesting to note is the memory latency seems to have dropped a bit, at 3200 MHz CL14 the processor's memory controllers showed a 66ns latency, that's again roughly 10%.
Check the thumbnail below.
Google to launch paid Spotify competitor Youtube Remix next year - 12/11/2017 09:57 AM
Word is out that Youtube will start to compete with Spotify and Apple Music next year with a paid music streaming service that might be called Remix. Google reportedly made a deal with Warner Mu...
Intel Releases latest HD Graphics Driver - Enables Netflix and YouTube HDR - 11/08/2017 10:58 AM
Intel today released its latest Graphics Driver for Windows v15.60 WHQL. It is compatible with most GPU embedded procs including 6th generation "Skylake," 7th generation "Kaby Lake,...
2016 model Samsung TVs to support Youtube HDR - 12/20/2016 09:50 AM
Samsung Electronics today announced that it will support YouTube’s global HDR playback on television for the first time, through an expanded version of the YouTube application. ...
Rumor: YouTube to Stream TV channels though paid subscription - 05/05/2016 03:52 AM
YouTube seems to be working hard on a paid subscription model called Unplugged that would offer customers a bundle of cable TV channels streamed over the Internet, people familiar with the plan said....
Youtube supporting 60fps uploads starting today - 10/30/2014 08:45 AM
Though Chrome only, YouTube announced that it's adding two new features that will especially benefit people who enjoy watching gameplays and those who stream games live. Most excitingly, the site ...
user1
Senior Member
Posts: 2425
Joined: 2016-01-29
Senior Member
Posts: 2425
Joined: 2016-01-29
#5534598 Posted on: 04/03/2018 10:40 PM
From what i gather pinnacle ridge shares the improved l2 cache latency that raven ridge has along with improved l3 cache latency, so it will get slightly better ipc, but not much, other than that its pretty much the same chip. at higher speeds.
should be perfect since intel wont be launching anything that can clock higher than coffee lake for quite some time, the gap is closing , down to ~600-700mhz advantage rather than 900-1000mhz
From what i gather pinnacle ridge shares the improved l2 cache latency that raven ridge has along with improved l3 cache latency, so it will get slightly better ipc, but not much, other than that its pretty much the same chip. at higher speeds.
should be perfect since intel wont be launching anything that can clock higher than coffee lake for quite some time, the gap is closing , down to ~600-700mhz advantage rather than 900-1000mhz
Pinscher
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 2017-04-11
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 2017-04-11
#5534615 Posted on: 04/03/2018 11:45 PM
Intel's Turbo Boost 3.0 on the other hand... that's pretty stupid, because all cores are capable of simultaneously turboing to some degree, which totally defeats the purpose of having a base clock. The first and I think 2nd generation Turbo Boost actually made sense and were great ideas, where the CPU would boost a core here and there to maximize the performance of single-threaded tasks, without exceeding the TDP limits. This was especially useful in laptops.
That sounds like 2.0 is really quite a useful technology would would warrant mention, other than we just turbo up your CPU to run faster while it's possible.
Intel's Turbo Boost 3.0 on the other hand... that's pretty stupid, because all cores are capable of simultaneously turboing to some degree, which totally defeats the purpose of having a base clock. The first and I think 2nd generation Turbo Boost actually made sense and were great ideas, where the CPU would boost a core here and there to maximize the performance of single-threaded tasks, without exceeding the TDP limits. This was especially useful in laptops.
That sounds like 2.0 is really quite a useful technology would would warrant mention, other than we just turbo up your CPU to run faster while it's possible.
Pinscher
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 2017-04-11
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 2017-04-11
#5534621 Posted on: 04/04/2018 12:11 AM
1. for power saving. Unlike us enthusiasts, a lot of people care about a CPU being able to clock up and down to conserve power.
AMD can market the highest possible frequencies and the lowest possible power specs to make the CPU more appealing to all customers. Intel does this as well. Look at the i9 they just announced. 4
2. XFR2 as opposed to XFR certainly has its advantages mainly by making sure the workload stays on the higher frequency core. This was a problem with XFR but the new algorithm and the more mature AMD developers have been able to make this work better and even scale more with the load. If it uses 2 cores, those two clock really high. 3 cores, little lower frequency but 3 cores boost. 4 cores..... you get the point. Taking the mindset that everyone is like you is just not logical.
Some people just dont care to OC. I know a few. AMD is doing fine and will continue to do so with how fast they are pumping out new and performing products. People just have to have time to adopt and get used to the new stuff. Always been this way and always will be.
You are making some great points.. really my post could go on and on to respond and have a conversation, but norammly that kills a trhead.
I'll follow your format.
Power savings: The only people that are concerned about a CPU's power consumption are those who are going to OC and they are not concerned about the consumed power as much as they are concerned about the power envelope they have to work with to achieve their OC. No one else cares. "I hope my new Rizen saves me 25 watts of power," no one said ever. Anyone only ever wants their work to be done faster and if they need a lower power device that has the battery life they desire for that requirement.
XFR2: if a core can be clocked high, wouldn't simply setting your CPU to run at that clock serve more useful. Why pout an algo in between you and the performance you want regardless of what you need at any given point. Thanks for the lesson regarding XFR going beyond the all core speed of a "setup" CPU. I figured once your set your all core frequency that XFR was redundant since you capped the CPU out already. I guess in the end the tech still has some purpose.
OCING: Regardless of people being like me or not isn't the point. Any person can simply look at an OC vs Stock Bench mark and realize that CPU's are purposely gimped by manufactures. The fact that we refer to "setting up a CPU" as "OCing" is the reason why more people don't go through the setup steps themselves. They think, "oh, i don't know anything about OCing" even if they know about the bios and tweaking settings. The industry or more so community has taking a very normal practice of setting up a CPU and putting an elitist term on it and scaring away laymen from take responsibility for their computers, and that's a sad situation.
1. for power saving. Unlike us enthusiasts, a lot of people care about a CPU being able to clock up and down to conserve power.
AMD can market the highest possible frequencies and the lowest possible power specs to make the CPU more appealing to all customers. Intel does this as well. Look at the i9 they just announced. 4
2. XFR2 as opposed to XFR certainly has its advantages mainly by making sure the workload stays on the higher frequency core. This was a problem with XFR but the new algorithm and the more mature AMD developers have been able to make this work better and even scale more with the load. If it uses 2 cores, those two clock really high. 3 cores, little lower frequency but 3 cores boost. 4 cores..... you get the point. Taking the mindset that everyone is like you is just not logical.
Some people just dont care to OC. I know a few. AMD is doing fine and will continue to do so with how fast they are pumping out new and performing products. People just have to have time to adopt and get used to the new stuff. Always been this way and always will be.
You are making some great points.. really my post could go on and on to respond and have a conversation, but norammly that kills a trhead.
I'll follow your format.
Power savings: The only people that are concerned about a CPU's power consumption are those who are going to OC and they are not concerned about the consumed power as much as they are concerned about the power envelope they have to work with to achieve their OC. No one else cares. "I hope my new Rizen saves me 25 watts of power," no one said ever. Anyone only ever wants their work to be done faster and if they need a lower power device that has the battery life they desire for that requirement.
XFR2: if a core can be clocked high, wouldn't simply setting your CPU to run at that clock serve more useful. Why pout an algo in between you and the performance you want regardless of what you need at any given point. Thanks for the lesson regarding XFR going beyond the all core speed of a "setup" CPU. I figured once your set your all core frequency that XFR was redundant since you capped the CPU out already. I guess in the end the tech still has some purpose.
OCING: Regardless of people being like me or not isn't the point. Any person can simply look at an OC vs Stock Bench mark and realize that CPU's are purposely gimped by manufactures. The fact that we refer to "setting up a CPU" as "OCing" is the reason why more people don't go through the setup steps themselves. They think, "oh, i don't know anything about OCing" even if they know about the bios and tweaking settings. The industry or more so community has taking a very normal practice of setting up a CPU and putting an elitist term on it and scaring away laymen from take responsibility for their computers, and that's a sad situation.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7246
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7246
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5534650 Posted on: 04/04/2018 02:12 AM
You mean 3.0?
But no, it's not a useful technology, it's a stupid gimmick that just permits Intel to ship cheaper heatsinks. You're not getting free/bonus performance, you're maybe getting performance you should have already had out-of-the-box that you already paid for. Their CPUs are perfectly capable of reliably sustaining their all-core boost clocks, but the heat generated when doing so would require them to improve the box cooler.
They guarantee the performance of the base clocks, not the turbo clocks. So as long as the stock heatsink can sustain base clocks, whatever extra performance you lose is not their problem. When all cores are capable of clocking higher but don't due to thermal issues, it's really no different than thermal throttling. If they wanted what was best for the customer, they wouldn't have "all-core turbo speeds" (and instead, use that speed as the base clock) and they'd ship a heatsink that wasn't made out of a pack of beer cans.
This becomes unethical, in the sense that reviewers will keep the CPU in ideal conditions, whether that be cool and clean air, or whether that be an aftermarket heatsink. So even when they keep the CPU at "factory settings", it's going to run better than it will for the average joe, especially after joe has been using the computer for over a year and the stock heatsink is caked with dust.
Like I said, I'm greatly in-favor of Turbo Boost, just not when all cores are boosted.
That sounds like 2.0 is really quite a useful technology would would warrant mention, other than we just turbo up your CPU to run faster while it's possible.
You mean 3.0?
But no, it's not a useful technology, it's a stupid gimmick that just permits Intel to ship cheaper heatsinks. You're not getting free/bonus performance, you're maybe getting performance you should have already had out-of-the-box that you already paid for. Their CPUs are perfectly capable of reliably sustaining their all-core boost clocks, but the heat generated when doing so would require them to improve the box cooler.
They guarantee the performance of the base clocks, not the turbo clocks. So as long as the stock heatsink can sustain base clocks, whatever extra performance you lose is not their problem. When all cores are capable of clocking higher but don't due to thermal issues, it's really no different than thermal throttling. If they wanted what was best for the customer, they wouldn't have "all-core turbo speeds" (and instead, use that speed as the base clock) and they'd ship a heatsink that wasn't made out of a pack of beer cans.
This becomes unethical, in the sense that reviewers will keep the CPU in ideal conditions, whether that be cool and clean air, or whether that be an aftermarket heatsink. So even when they keep the CPU at "factory settings", it's going to run better than it will for the average joe, especially after joe has been using the computer for over a year and the stock heatsink is caked with dust.
Like I said, I'm greatly in-favor of Turbo Boost, just not when all cores are boosted.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 2017-04-07
I've had my 1600 at all core clock of 3.9 Ghz since day one. I've never used XRF regardless of my motherboard being compatible or not.
What does XFR 2.0 have to to offer that anyone who is OCing would care about?
Is anyone else tired of calling setting up a CPU to run exactly how it's capable of running "OCing?" Really, this should just be the norm and not considered OCing in the least. Last gen Ryzen was quire rediculous in this matter. Rebranded 1800x as 1700 and people talking about how they OC their cpu.. seriously...I still can't believe people bought the 1800x when they knew it has no headroom for real OCing.
In regards to AMD, CPU's shouldn't have acronyms to pretend a CPU is excellent at doing exactly what it's hamstrung default factory setting allow it.
I vote to rename OCing to degimping. At least when talking about AMD CPU where no effort or special hardware is required to get acceptable max frequency.
Guessing this was aimed at me for the XFR. Here is the deal. Now that the other member spelled out XFR, in the normal world people arent going to OC their CPUs. Even if they can, they are not. Enter what xfr and turbo do. 1. for power saving. Unlike us enthusiasts, a lot of people care about a CPU being able to clock up and down to conserve power. AMD can market the highest possible frequencies and the lowest possible power specs to make the CPU more appealing to all customers. Intel does this as well. Look at the i9 they just announced. 4.8 sounds awesome right?!?!? Look at the fine print... only 4.8on a single core. 2. XFR2 as opposed to XFR certainly has its advantages mainly by making sure the workload stays on the higher frequency core. This was a problem with XFR but the new algorithm and the more mature AMD developers have been able to make this work better and even scale more with the load. If it uses 2 cores, those two clock really high. 3 cores, little lower frequency but 3 cores boost. 4 cores..... you get the point. Taking the mindset that everyone is like you is just not logical. Some people just dont care to OC. I know a few. AMD is doing fine and will continue to do so with how fast they are pumping out new and performing products. People just have to have time to adopt and get used to the new stuff. Always been this way and always will be.