YouTube LiveStream Shows Benchmarks AMD Ryzen 2700X to be 10% faster

Published by

Click here to post a comment for YouTube LiveStream Shows Benchmarks AMD Ryzen 2700X to be 10% faster on our message forum
#5534656
data/avatar/default/avatar02.webp
I saw part of the stream from the italian guy who had the processor and all the test were conducted using a X370 Gigabyte motherboard if my memory serves me well. He couldnt get a stable 4.3 OC no matter what he tried, only 4.275 allowed him to run CB without a crash. He also used an AIO watercooler and temps were pretty decent. He also, at some point, show in front of the camera the new Prism cooler, which I must say, it seems to be a great cooler btw. Just my $0.02
#5534663
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/270/270718.jpg
Pinscher:

"I hope my new rizen saves me 25 watts of power," no one said ever.
lolol 😀:p:p Im sorry dude you just made my day, I'm inclined to include this quote in my sig...:D:D
#5534670
data/avatar/default/avatar29.webp
TitanArchon:

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.
Exactly. If I had to guess, most people don't overclock their cpu and have no desire too.
#5534673
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/118/118821.jpg
schmidtbag:

No, it isn't a tall order. It's pretty standard, actually - just about every processor (including from ARM, PPC, MIPS, or GPUs) gets refined between each generation, especially after first generations.
expecting IPC boost of any significance from a 14->12nm die ~~~shrink~~~ on an architecture that, upon its first showing, exhibited clear power delivery issues approaching 1.3v (basically leaking wattage beyond the cores ability to dissipate it, despite temperature)...ehhhhh its kind of a stretch, man. i see where youre coming from, but in this instance the refinement is of an even more basic nature & frankly it needed to be prioritized. this is a solid iteration.
user1:

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.
thats my understanding as well
#5534703
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/267/267787.jpg
A 10% increase is not bad for a refresh.
#5534809
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/196/196426.jpg
So if 2700x is 10-15% faster than 1800x, I wonder what will be possible with the real "top-of-the-line" 2800x which will probably come later? If it hits 4.5Ghz overclocked on AIO, it's a sale ! Time to retire my "old" crappy Intel 6800K which barely hits 4.2Ghz without cooking itself, on only 6 cores.
#5534884
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/243/243702.jpg
wavetrex:

So if 2700x is 10-15% faster than 1800x, I wonder what will be possible with the real "top-of-the-line" 2800x which will probably come later? If it hits 4.5Ghz overclocked on AIO, it's a sale ! Time to retire my "old" crappy Intel 6800K which barely hits 4.2Ghz without cooking itself, on only 6 cores.
Guess who is gonna wait for Zen2? Spoiler: "Don't Click."
You Are.
#5534930
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/258/258688.jpg
sideeffect:

For comparison my 1700 clocked at 3.85GHz all cores gets 1747 CB. Cache and Memory latency decreases with Ryzen as clock frequency (CPU, IF) increases so that is to be expected and looks like a consequence of the increased frequency with rev 2 rather than any improvements in the design but we will see.
Yes, I suspect this is the case. I think that AMD has been fairly clear from the start that this is a simple die reduction to a smaller manufacturing process, which allows for higher clocks and overclocks, at least theoretically.
#5535436
data/avatar/default/avatar08.webp
schmidtbag:

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.
Turbo boost was not supposed to run CPU out of spec. That was motherboard vendors who enabled OC thru MCE by default...

Previous Page