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.

easytomy:

C'mon... you're reducing the fab-process, and you're updating known / initial release issues... I was expecting a 2800X to reach 4.5+ GHz

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.

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.

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...

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.....

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.

H83:

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...

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.

schmidtbag:

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,

jortego128:

So it scores 15% better than a 1600 with a 6% clock increase? Who has confirmed that?

its simply extrapolated from the sandra bench

Agonist:

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?

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.

schmidtbag:

Keep in mind, a lot of the memory bandwidth is now divided for the IGP too, so who knows if Ryzen 2 cores are actually slightly faster than 15%. Regardless, I'd say a roughly ~10% IPC improvement is acceptable for something where we knew there were no major architectural changes. The Ryzen 2000 series is likely just a series of bugfixes from the first generation (some of the first models produced had some pretty serious hardware bugs) and a few micro-optimizations here and there. As I've mentioned in other posts, if the Ryzen 2000 series is better at overclocking, that's what will really keep people's interest.

If you put it like that, a 10% IPC increase isn't bad but the small bump of only 200MHz clock speed doesn't inspire much confidence when it comes to overclocking; at least not when Ryzen wasn't exactly the best overclocker. Alas, I hope I'm wrong really. At the end of the day Intel was conservative with its clock speed in the past as well, in order to respect certain power profiles (see Sandy, most of them went to 4.5GHz without much effort).

Just keep in mind guys si sandra doesn't report clock frequencies over time, could be clocking significantly higher than 3.4ghz. boosting to 3.6- 3.7ghz wouldn't be out of the question.

schmidtbag:

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.

kruno:

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,

I Agree that Ryzens gaming performance is adequate but still it falls short in certain games and in some cases Ryzen performs much worse than Intel for reasons no one seems to understand. For me Ryzens gaming performance is his weak spot and i would like that to be addressed by AMD. I want Ryzen to offer at least 90% performance compared to Intel in every game not 90% in some games, then 80% in others and sometimes worse... And yes i have a 144Hz monitor. As for the dual core part, i was saying that any dual core is more than enough for normal usage excluding gaming and professional hardware. Just my opinion, of course. I think Ryzen is a great CPU but the gaming performance is still lacking for me. If the next Ryzen fixes that then Ryzen will be basically perfect.

H83:

I Agree that Ryzens gaming performance is adequate but still it falls short in certain games and in some cases Ryzen performs much worse than Intel for reasons no one seems to understand. For me Ryzens gaming performance is his weak spot and i would like that to be addressed by AMD. I want Ryzen to offer at least 90% performance compared to Intel in every game not 90% in some games, then 80% in others and sometimes worse... And yes i have a 144Hz monitor. As for the dual core part, i was saying that any dual core is more than enough for normal usage excluding gaming and professional hardware. Just my opinion, of course. I think Ryzen is a great CPU but the gaming performance is still lacking for me. If the next Ryzen fixes that then Ryzen will be basically perfect.

Reason is known, it is type of data bus that Ryzen is using. Intel uses ring bus and AMD uses point to point bus, given that most of games are optimized for Intel ring bus, that is "weak" spot of Ryzen. You can see similar results, i mean weaker gaming score in Intel's newest enthusiast platform Skylake-x which doesn't use ring bus but similar to Ryzen point to point bus , of course being able to pull higher clocks then Ryzen Skylake-x is able to some degree mask that "weak" spot , it is still there but less pronounced then Ryzen

H83:

I Agree that Ryzens gaming performance is adequate but still it falls short in certain games and in some cases Ryzen performs much worse than Intel for reasons no one seems to understand. For me Ryzens gaming performance is his weak spot and i would like that to be addressed by AMD. I want Ryzen to offer at least 90% performance compared to Intel in every game not 90% in some games, then 80% in others and sometimes worse... And yes i have a 144Hz monitor.

Which games specifically does it fall short or less than 90%? I'm not aware of any modern benchmarks that suggest such a thing. But, with a 144Hz monitor, I would suggest you stick with Intel anyway; I'm pretty sure Ryzen 2 is not going to improve enough for a display like that.

xIcarus:

If you put it like that, a 10% IPC increase isn't bad but the small bump of only 200MHz clock speed doesn't inspire much confidence when it comes to overclocking; at least not when Ryzen wasn't exactly the best overclocker. Alas, I hope I'm wrong really. At the end of the day Intel was conservative with its clock speed in the past as well, in order to respect certain power profiles (see Sandy, most of them went to 4.5GHz without much effort).

I've thought pretty much the same thing word for word. Personally, I think Ryzen 2 will likely allow most people to reach 4.1-4.2GHz instead of the 3.9-4.0 that Ryzen 1 can achieve. Anything higher than that I think would be pretty exciting. I think it is also worth considering that AMD seems a bit ambitious in selling all of their current stock. The way I see it, they're doing this because if Ryzen 2 is a significant improvement, they don't want all the Ryzen 1s collecting dust on the shelves for eternity like Bulldozer did. They probably yielded very little profit after all those hefty sales and price cuts, but it's better than getting no return at all.

kruno:

Reason is known, it is type of data bus that Ryzen is using. Intel uses ring bus and AMD uses point to point bus, given that most of games are optimized for Intel ring bus, that is "weak" spot of Ryzen. You can see similar results, i mean weaker gaming score in Intel's newest enthusiast platform Skylake-x which doesn't use ring bus but similar to Ryzen point to point bus , of course being able to pull higher clocks then Ryzen Skylake-x is able to some degree mask that "weak" spot , it is still there but less pronounced then Ryzen

You're not wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that games aren't and for the most part won't be specifically optimized for the Zen architecture for a while. Doesn't matter whether or not the hardware is better if nobody cares to adopt it. So for anyone who needs every FPS they can get (like H83's 144Hz display), they're better off with Intel for now.

Why does anyone here even care about base/turbo clock uplift on unlocked chip? Honestly, if it performs 5% better at same clock and max achievable clock is now 10% higher (4,4 ~ 4,5GHz), it is already win. Apparently it does perform bit better and clocks bit higher at "same" 65W TDP. I've been waiting for quite some time. And I can wait another 3 months. My main concern is to get mATX board with high end chipset and one PCI slot. As current X370 has just one variant with PCI slot and that has ATX format.

Fox2232:

I've been waiting for quite some time. And I can wait another 3 months. My main concern is to get mATX board with high end chipset and one PCI slot. As current X370 has just one variant with PCI slot and that is ATX format.

I know right!? Though I personally wasn't shopping for a mATX X370 board, it boggles my mind why nobody has made one yet. X370 is a bit underwhelming for an enthusiast chipset on ATX boards, but it has just the right amount of features for mATX. It should be possible for manufacturers to take advantage of everything X370 has to offer. Allow for high-bandwidth Crossfire/SLI support. Create a secondary or tertiary M.2 slot. Have a mini PCIe or M.2 slot dedicated for wifi/Bluetooth. Have a x4 or x8 slot that remains at that speed regardless of the other x1 slots being occupied. Add a 3rd party SATA controller. There are so many options that could give people a real premium mATX experience that would hardly be any worse than full ATX boards. Instead, we're stuck with B350, which is insufficient in a lot of use cases.

200 MHz is a ridiculous amount if that's all we get even with OC. I will never touch AMD again.

Rakanoth:

200 MHz is a ridiculous amount if that's all we get even with OC. I will never touch AMD again.

U mad bro? Intel had the same stock clocks improvement between last generations. What did you expect, 1ghz better clocks? 200base clock diff is OK. Overclock is another chapter to look into.

kruno:

Reason is known, it is type of data bus that Ryzen is using. Intel uses ring bus and AMD uses point to point bus, given that most of games are optimized for Intel ring bus, that is "weak" spot of Ryzen. You can see similar results, i mean weaker gaming score in Intel's newest enthusiast platform Skylake-x which doesn't use ring bus but similar to Ryzen point to point bus , of course being able to pull higher clocks then Ryzen Skylake-x is able to some degree mask that "weak" spot , it is still there but less pronounced then Ryzen

You´re probably right but still the performance difference remains for Ryzen. I hope the next Ryzen solves or alliviates this issue.

schmidtbag:

Which games specifically does it fall short or less than 90%? I'm not aware of any modern benchmarks that suggest such a thing. But, with a 144Hz monitor, I would suggest you stick with Intel anyway; I'm pretty sure Ryzen 2 is not going to improve enough for a display like that.

I can´t remember the name of the games but i know that some games perform much worse on Ryzen than on Intel for no apparent reason... One of those mysteries... Personally my OC 7600K is more than enough for my needs but Intel´s antics are leaving me with a bad taste and sometimes is just feel like i should ditch them and go to AMD... And maybe AMDs inferior performance is not that important/noticeable because the GPU becomes the bottleneck, don´t know unless i try...