Friday, February 10th 2017

AMD's "X" Nomenclature on Upcoming Ryzen Chips Related To XFR Feature

A Reddit user has used some good, old-fashioned thinking and inference (along with a good memory for details and investigative spirit) to try and shed some light on AMD's upcoming Ryzen chips - particularly, on the "X" part of their nomenclature.

As we've previously reported, upcoming AMD Ryzen chips will slot in two versions for each model: for example, there will be a R7 1700X, 8-core, 16-thread processor (with 95 W TDP), and expected to retail for $381.72, and a R7 1700 (sans "X"), also 8-core, 16-thread, with a rated TDP at 65 W, expected to retail at $316.59, almost $70 cheaper than the 1700X. Now, with AMD's promise of all Ryzen processors being multiplier unlocked (and thus user - or even through an automatic BIOS - overclockable), this would mean that acquiring the 1700X chip would somehow feel like bad business - after all, if the only difference between the two models were to be base and boost clocks (thus higher pricing and TDP), that would fall irrelevant to most power users, since the ability to overclock their Ryzen processors to those levels would be there anyway.
Essentialy, AMD's "X" nomenclature regarding its upcoming Ryzen chips seems to denote the presence or absence of their touted XFR (eXtended Frequency Range) feature. This is part of AMD's SenseMI Technology suite, which aims to bring higher, intelligent performance to their Ryzen chips through the use of some particular technologies. XFR as it is, appears to be an added, automated overclocking capability to the chip, going further than the Precision Boost clocks would usually allow, supposedly scaling with the cooling performance of the end user's machine. This would fall in nicely with the rated TDP's of the non-X processors being rated at 65 W, with the X-branded, XFR-enabled processors featuring a higher theoretical TDP limit in-line with the capabilities of the XFR feature. As such, while it is true that an AMD Ryzen R7 1700 chip would also have base and boost clocks, much like their 1700X counterpart, the 1700's boost capabilities are designed for the chip not to surpass this 65 W hard limit. The 1700X, however, would be able to dynamically overclock according to the environment and cooling efficiency of the end user's rig, thus allowing it to, in some cases, hit a theoretical power consumption peak at the rated 95 W.

This theory (and AMD's strategy) would go some way to explain the high price difference between the 1700X and the 1700 R7 processors, which have a measly 100 MHz difference in their boost clocks favoring the 1700X (3.8 GHz vs 3.7 GHz on the 1700). After all, it still remains up in the air how good of an overclocker will AMD's ZEN architecture be, but a TDP difference of 30 W could go a long way overclocking-wise, especially when you consider AMD can apparently make these chips tick at 3.8 GHz with a measly 65 W TDP for an 8-core, 16-thread chip.

This strategy also makes sense in that power users who spend money on high-performance cooling solutions are probably more inclined to spend more on a CPU that promises (even if only theoretically) higher overclocking potential (we can expect these X chips to be cherry-picked samples with higher overclockability than other, non-X models). This also makes sense when one considers that the X versions of Ryzen chips are expected to ship with no cooling solution, whereas non-X models will ship with the company's "Wraith" cooling solution, more than enough for the non-power user who doesn't care about something like XFR. While it is a fact that most enthusiast users will simply buy the non-X chips and overclock them until the sky is no longer an achievement, it is also true that even some of us might feel more inclined towards simply "install and forget" high-performance, automatically-overclocked chips (also something the good Dr. Lisa Su mentioned during the "New Horizon" event, saying that XFR was "just for you enthusiast gamers").Source: Reddit user riuzaky2
Add your own comment

71 Comments on AMD's "X" Nomenclature on Upcoming Ryzen Chips Related To XFR Feature

#2
Aenra
Interesting.. i do still wonder if it's just the software though; i mean they've done it before, the good 9350s were rebranded and sold as 9590s, just to name the most recent example. Maybe the Xs will also be able to overclock higher? Software notwithstanding i mean.
Posted on Reply
#3
Sempron Guy
It would be interesting if both XFR and manual overclocking via multiplier can work together. That will widen the gap even more between the x and non-x if ever that theory comes out to be true.
Posted on Reply
#4
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
the54thvoid said:
So, guesswork - not a fact?
It fits what we know though: X has no stock HSF, has high TDP, and a rather sizable price premium. Self-overclocking would justify all of those things.

AMD must be very confident that these chips can hold ridiculously high clock speeds and have an accurate means for testing its upper limit.

Sempron Guy said:
It would be interesting if both XFR and manual overclocking via multiplier can work together. That will widen the gap even more between the x and non-x if ever that theory comes out to be true.
Pretty sure you'd have to disable XFR if you're going to overclock yourself. That said, all Ryzen chips have unlocked multipliers so you can overclock them all. If you do intend to overclock, it makes sense to go the X model because you can buy a beefier HSF without having one sitting around.

It'll be interesting to see if XFR does a better job at overclocking than people do. XD
Posted on Reply
#5
theoneandonlymrk
theoneandonlymrk said:
After checking out Hexus's version of this story they have the uk prices listed
1800X @4ghz 95 watt tdp without fan Hs 438 inc vat quids
1700 @ 3.7 65Watt Tdp with fan Hs Wraith 282 inc vat
1700X @ 3.8 95 Watt Tdp without fan Hs 339.90 inc vat quids


but please note where the X lies, X =95watt part none X is 65watt even the 8 core 16 thread 1700, interesting as there will clearly be a lower OC potential of none X parts due to the way TDP defines top clocks with no other barrier.

picture thanks to hexus.net

interestingly lamda tek have them for sale and in stock, id try but its not payday.
personally i think its as i said yesterday, indirectly, i think XFR will be on them all and its going to be the TDP that defines performance.

ive used the last 3 gens of Amd gpus and the latest Polaris sets out what Will occour for me if the same tech is put into Cpus , and it is being.

my rx 480 controls clocks and power throughput so a max TDP is not exceeded ie the TDP now regulates what it is physically possible to put into power wise and hence get out performance wise............................................................many full stops end comment thats a fact.

i can bios flash a different bios , gain a higher tdp in firmware and then clock higher(not anymore mind because driver restrictions do not allow the dev bios to be used anymore) so i know this is how my present amd chip product is working and is controlled.

now apply that to Ryzen, possibly improved a bit and you get a scenario where the X versions will clock higher in loads and the none X parts hit a limit well within there specs.

this would very effectively control the value aspect of bothering with different Sku's, yes they all will oc but no every chip is certainly not equal.
Posted on Reply
#6
champsilva
Bait click?

A "could"would be appreciated.
Posted on Reply
#7
Chaitanya
the54thvoid said:
So, guesswork - not a fact?
We will have to wait only 2-3 weeks to find out. Until then its talk in air.
Posted on Reply
#8
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
What would be nice is if the Igp portion of chips could be shut off for use.
Posted on Reply
#9
Slizzo
eidairaman1 said:
What would be nice is if the Igp portion of chips could be shut off for use.
If you're speaking to Ryzen, none of the announced CPUs carry an IGP, (thus not being named as APUs).
Posted on Reply
#10
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Slizzo said:
If you're speaking to Ryzen, none of the announced CPUs carry an IGP, (thus not being named as APUs).
Universified platform, there will be APUs.
Posted on Reply
#11
bug
the54thvoid said:
So, guesswork - not a fact?
That's all you get before launch, no matter which party is launching.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheGuruStud
eidairaman1 said:
Universified platform, there will be APUs.
You are the worst poster on TPU, I swear.
Posted on Reply
#13
NdMk2o1o
eidairaman1 said:
Universified platform, there will be APUs.
And the will be aptly named and marketed as APU's whereas the op is about desktop processors... ;)
Posted on Reply
#14
kruk
I'm really surprised that the X processors won't come with the Wraith cooler. I thought Wraith was a high-end stock cooler capable of cooling CPUs with up to 125W TDP ...
Posted on Reply
#15
Slizzo
eidairaman1 said:
Universified platform, there will be APUs.
I know there will be APUs at some point based on Ryzen.

However this story is based on currently announced, and weeks from launch CPUs that do not carry an IGP.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheLaughingMan
eidairaman1 said:
What would be nice is if the Igp portion of chips could be shut off for use.
If you don't want an IGP, then buy a chip that does not have one.
Posted on Reply
#17
MrGenius
"Automatically-overclocked"? That's an oxymoron. I mean I get it. XFR is a fancy new way to auto-control "turbo/boost" clock speeds. But "overclocking" it is not.
Posted on Reply
#18
ironwolf
theoneandonlymrk said:
personally i think its as i said yesterday, indirectly, i think XFR will be on them all and its going to be the TDP that defines performance.
:confused: The slide that refers to SenseMI specifically says in the lower right corner that XFR will be available on select Ryzen CPUs. Didn't say all. That is of course if that slide is to be believed.
Posted on Reply
#19
the54thvoid
MrGenius said:
"Automatically-overclocked"? That's an oxymoron. I mean I get it. XFR is a fancy new way to auto-control "turbo/boost" clock speeds. But "overclocking" it is not.
I laughed. Quite correct you are sir.

I prefer @theoneandonlymrk's take that XFR will be on all CPU's but the higher TDP will give the 'X' chips much greater headroom. Like if Nvidia allowed a higher power limit on it's GPU's, we might see higher clocks.
Posted on Reply
#20
TheGuruStud
MrGenius said:
"Automatically-overclocked"? That's an oxymoron. I mean I get it. XFR is a fancy new way to auto-control "turbo/boost" clock speeds. But "overclocking" it is not.
Xtra Super Duper Mega Alpha and Omega Boost?
Posted on Reply
#21
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
TheGuruStud said:
You are the worst poster on TPU, I swear.
Actually I am not, you however are a different story:rolleyes::toast:

NdMk2o1o said:
And the will be aptly named and marketed as APU's whereas the op is about desktop processors... ;)
Course I know that see my second reply below Slizzos Quote.

Slizzo said:
I know there will be APUs at some point based on Ryzen.

However this story is based on currently announced, and weeks from launch CPUs that do not carry an IGP.
I am only mentioning this because it would be a good feature for the IGP based units anyway since they are all on the same platform now.

TheLaughingMan said:
If you don't want an IGP, then buy a chip that does not have one.
Look at my current specs, never grabbed APUs or IGP based units, look at the quote above yours and you will see why.
Posted on Reply
#22
Fluffmeister
So like GPU boost tech, but charging extra for it? Interesting.
Posted on Reply
#23
Liviu Cojocaru
Both variants sound interesting but if the OC potential of the non X models are close to their sibling I will definitely go for that. I am really curious to see the reviews for this things, let's hope they're living up to the expectations.
Posted on Reply
#24
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Raevenlord said:
65 W hard limit
:wtf: I really hope this isn't true and they don't do the same thing they are doing with their GPUs and putting a hard limit on the processor that it can't surpass no matter that the user does. This would be a pretty crappy way to suck and extra $70 out of customers.
Posted on Reply
#25
TheLaughingMan
eidairaman1 said:
Actually I am not, you however are a different story:rolleyes::toast:

Course I know that see my second reply below Slizzos Quote.

I am only mentioning this because it would be a good feature for the IGP based units anyway since they are all on the same platform now.

Look at my current specs, never grabbed APUs or IGP based units, look at the quote above yours and you will see why.
Them being on one platform now makes this less likely and even less of a good option. The IGP can be turned off by installing a dedicated GPU now. That's it. Install, set to boot PCIe first, IGP never turns on so this is already a feature. Now it makes even less sense because the unified platform no longer limits your choices when a upgrade is possible. Now you can either just by an APU because you needed or wanted the IGP or just get a chip without one. Unlike before when you had to chose a platform and cut off the FX line as an option.

So since you are not clear. I don't think any of use understand WHY you want something that is already an option.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment