First Ryzen Quad Cores Will not Pass 3.2 GHz?

Published by

Click here to post a comment for First Ryzen Quad Cores Will not Pass 3.2 GHz? on our message forum
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/268/268248.jpg
if those clock under 4ghz after you overclock this is not a good sign seems weird though
data/avatar/default/avatar04.webp
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..
data/avatar/default/avatar19.webp
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.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/130/130124.jpg
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.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/248/248994.jpg
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.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/245/245459.jpg
Maybe AMD will use in the beginning all those CCXs that have 4 fully functional cores but can't clock high enough to be used in a Ryzen 7 1700. After they got more CCXs from GlobalFoundries and have enough to start building every model in the Ryzen series at high quantities, they will introduce faster quad core models. Remember, AMD is not Intel. GlobalFoundries is not Intel. They both have restrictions at the same time that Intel doesn't know how to fill it's factories' product lines and where to spent all it's money sitting around.
That's a good point, the same thought was going through my mind at how it could make sense that the stock clocks on these quad cores could be lower than that of the recently released 8 core Ryzen. If that's the case then it doesn't bode well for overclocking, and seems like they wouldn't clock as high as their 8 core brothers. I think these low reported clock speeds will turn out to be bogus though, I reckon the quad cores will be released with competitive clock speeds and will overclock just as well if not better than the 8 core versions already released. Although I don't expect them to overclock that much better than the 8 cores (maybe 100-200Mhz more max).
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/175/175902.jpg
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.
i agree it's Ryzen 1200 and 1400, they are at the bottom of the list 🙂 3.2Ghz is good (or maybe enough lol) at this level.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/175/175902.jpg
Canard, if as reliable in the past as you say
it is, it's one of the oldest tech magazine ("canard" in french slang) then site.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/258/258664.jpg
Such a CPU plus a cheap mainboard might be my next HTPC, just to toy around with it. 😀
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/229/229509.jpg
Could be a process limitation. Ryzen seems to need a LOT of voltage to get past 4 GHz.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/258/258664.jpg
This makes sense. Due to the current state of multithreading in most games, it would be embarrassing for R5 to clock equal or higher to the R7. If if clocked slightly higher, you might get R5 overtaking R7 in some games... for half the price.
You mean what people do when going for Intel mainstream for gaming instead of enthusiast platforms like LGA2011-3? 😉
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/79/79740.jpg
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.
Frankly, makes little sense. These must be good enough to compete well with Intels 4 cores, the i5s, which are no push-overs.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/216/216349.jpg
What´s the surprise??? It has been said many times by Canard PC and others that the best chips are all going to be used on the R7 versions. The weaker chips not only are going to have less cores but also lower clocks because of weaker power profiles. And from what i understand, the 4 and 6 cores versions will reach the same overlclocks of the 8 cores parts. This has been talked about since the beginning, if it´s true or not, we´ll have to wait for reviews.
data/avatar/default/avatar35.webp
Also if this is a leftover silicon lottery from the 8core CPUs makes me wonder about something that AMD did in the past. With certain Phenom II Cpus you could enable the cores that were disabled for whatever reason and if it worked you could have a Quad-Core (if you have a tri-core) and a Hex-core (if you has a quad) Makes me wonder if AMD could be going that route again? As far as clock speed goes I hope that this isn't true because I feel that AMD needs to compete their Quads with Intel's Quads as well.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/229/229509.jpg
Depends on how many different dies AMD have. If these are harvested from 8-core dies then I can understand it, if they have a distinct 4-core die then maybe not.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/245/245459.jpg
I'm not surprised, if those chips are only leftovers from worse silicon bins of 8 core cpus then it stands to reason that clocks will be worse along with non-working cores. There is albo a production process limitation 14nm LPP that while giving low power use at lower frequencies forces a very steep climb for voltages to keep stability at higher clocks. AFAIK the 3.7Ghz is a tipping point after which steep voltage increase is required to increase clocks. There will be no high clocked 4 core parts because of that, not because of power use (although it plays it's role too). Also if AMD gets it's 4 cores by the way of cutting cores from 8 cores it may mean even worse performance then in case of 8 cores because they probably will not be able to disable one CCX but will have to cut 2 cores off from each CCX, just as the can't do 6 core by disabling 2 cores from one CCX and leaving the other untouched.
Also some good points. That would be a nightmare if the 4 cores were spanned over 2 CCX's, you've got the increased latency there associated with communication across the 2 CCX - I'm hoping it'll be just 4 cores on one CCX.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/259/259654.jpg
Frankly, makes little sense. These must be good enough to compete well with Intels 4 cores, the i5s, which are no push-overs.
Not unless you can get an R3 for $80-120 and an R5 for $160-250.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/246/246171.jpg
I find this way too hard to believe. I'll just take the entire salt shaker. Contrary to what people are saying, no, this doesn't make sense, for the following reasons: 1. I heard the R5 series was getting an increase in frequency, not a lowered speed capped like this. 2. The concept of "they don't want it outperforming the 1800X" is utter BS. Intel's quad cores readily outperform their 8-cores in gaming benchmarks too, and you don't see them making a fuss about clock speeds. Why should AMD be any different? Your 8c/16t CPU was built for workstations, not gaming. Not sure why people don't understand this. 3. AMD needs to prove their worth with their architecture. They're not going to sabotage their entire product line because "R5 will take sales away from their most expensive models"; that's ridiculous. 4. CPUs with fewer cores tend to be easier to overclock for various reasons. Unless the 4-core models are bottom-of-the-barrel parts that are so poorly made that they can't even retain their intended clock speeds, it just doesn't make sense at all why their clocks would be so limited.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/175/175902.jpg
Guys the 1200 and the 1400 are probably apu line the 1500x 4c/8t CPU clocks @ 3.5/3.7 turbo
nope, the APU line is AM4 but based on old core gen, and will be severely weaker (the info is on AMD site and most mother board maker).
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/224/224796.jpg
I would expect the 4 core Ryzen CPUs to at least match the R 7 line in clocks/frequencies. Even if there is a break off point where egregious amounts of voltage is needed to exceed a certain frequency, I would still expect it to overclock as well as the R7 lineup, if not better. It's speculation on my part, but I think if AMD could tweak and revise an R3 or R5 that could OC to 4.5 ghz it would be a very attractive option for those who have gaming as their only real PC usage.... we shall see sometime this Summer season. :banana: