Ryzen benchmarking and overclocking results

[-1nf1n1ty-]

ryzen master... once CPU (Ryzen 1700) idles at 27C and full load @ 3925Ghz 1.45V @ 64C-66C the other (1800X) idles at 54C STOCK... loads in the 80's also stock multiple reseatings/repastings. Needless to say it's going back to Fry's tomorrow for a refund.



Just don't mess with the ram too much yet and you should be ok.

I will mess with it when bios are released, all I really want is XMP. By the way, my cpu stays at around the same temps in idle and load (more like 75c) But I live in texas and my room is warm so it's hard to say what the cause is? Maybe its a bios issue and since NOTHING is optimized for it, it goes a bit crazy? Dunno

 

[cadaveca]

right.. so they test at a base clock and get 95W. Then you can boost a couple of bins and still be under? How does that work when we know clock increases raise power use? I can see why it works with fewer cores, but not with all.

consider AVX2 load vs other loads... clock doesn't increase power use under lower load conditions, and so clock speed can be increased.

dave what does your 1700X thermals look like? Im now thinking maybe its my loop?

The 1700 is ice cold tho.

My 1700X is like your 1700. Did you clear CMOS when changing CPUs?

 

[EarthDog]

They don't change loads they test on though... would they? A load is a load is a load at a given clockspeed. If they test with AVX and hit 95W, then if they boost two bins on all cores its obviously more than 95W. Same with non AVX.

 

[cadaveca]

A load is a load is a load at a given clockspeed.

No, it isn't.

My 7700K for example, wPrime says 100% load, power draw is 74W, but AVX2 says 100% load, and power draw is 103W. That's more than a 25% difference, both 100% load.

AMD:

So they take different chips. one draw 74W, but the other draws 65W only in same load. 65W CPU gets higher XFR.

 

[phanbuey]

consider AVX2 load vs other loads... clock doesn't increase power use under lower load conditions, and so clock speed can be increased.



My 1700X is like your 1700. Did you clear CMOS when changing CPUs?

yeah the main reason i got it was to check to see if the DIMMS on the mobo really died or i somehow fried the IMC of the 1700.

 

[EarthDog]

No, it isn't.

My 7700K for example, wPrime says 100% load, power draw is 74W, but AVX2 says 100% load, and power draw is 103W. That's more than a 25% difference, both 100% load.

AMD:

So they take different chips. one draw 74W, but the other draws 65W only in same load. 65W CPU gets higher XFR.

I wasn't clear... If Intel tests with (whatever) load, and then raises clockspeeds and tests the same (whatever) load, it uses more power. Period. What am I missing?

 

[cadaveca]

I wasn't clear... If Intel tests with (whatever) load, and then raises clockspeeds and tests the same (whatever) load, it uses more power. Period. What am I missing?

Their binning process probably tells then that A chip @ B load = C max stable clock. They then turn things DOWN for retail, knowing how such a chip behaves at lower clocks. Pretty easy.

 

[EarthDog]

Probably...?

Gotcha.

 

[RejZoR]

No, it isn't.

My 7700K for example, wPrime says 100% load, power draw is 74W, but AVX2 says 100% load, and power draw is 103W. That's more than a 25% difference, both 100% load.

AMD:

So they take different chips. one draw 74W, but the other draws 65W only in same load. 65W CPU gets higher XFR.

It's why AVX/AVX2 is a prefered realworld stability testing "tool". I always use ASUS RealBench H.264 or Heavy Multithreaded test to evaluate stability. If system survives 10 loops of either without any errors or BSOD's, it's 99% chance it'll be stable with anything you throw at it. If it's partially stable, you'll get encoding errors and if it's not stable, it'll just lockup. Besides, AVX isn't some synthetic nonsense, you actually encounter this with video encoding which is pretty common task these days for anyone involved with Youtube.

 

[the54thvoid]

Weird result or possible future gaming performance when things work well?

http://www.eteknix.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-am4-8-core-processor-review/

This is the test system:

• Motherboard – MSI X370 XPOWER Gaming Titanium
• RAM – 16GB Crucial Ballistix Sport XT (2 x 8GB) DDR4 2666MHz
• CPU Cooler – Thermaltake Water 3.0 with Gelid GC-Extreme
• Graphics Card – Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 980Ti
• Power Supply – BeQuiet Dark Power Pro 850 Watt
• Main Storage Drive – Toshiba OCZ VX500 500GB
• Chassis – Lian Li T80 Test Bench
• Displays – U2868PQU 4K
• Operating System – Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit

 

[RejZoR]

Wow, that's quite big jump for only extra 100MHz on CPU. And even that OVER highly overclocked 7700k. Sure it's just one game, but still...

 

[HTC]

Weird result or possible future gaming performance when things work well?

http://www.eteknix.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-am4-8-core-processor-review/

This is the test system:

Interesting how an overclocked 6950X @ 4.3GHz get's 1.2 FPS boost over stock but Ryzen gets 9.6 FPS boost when overclocked to 4.1GHz compared to stock.

Even 7700 only gets 2.4 FPS over stock when overclocked @ 5.1 GHz.

The only Intel chip that gets any meaningfull increase over stock is the 4770 that jumps 8.5 FPS over stock when overclocked to 4.8GHz.

 

[the54thvoid]

Wow, that's quite big jump for only extra 100MHz on CPU. And even that OVER highly overclocked 7700k. Sure it's just one game, but still...

If a repeatable result - it clearly shows Ryzen has the ability to work well - it just needs to get it happening more often than not.

 

[cadaveca]

Probably...?

Gotcha.

The 4790K is the only CPU that Intel has said how they binned for, and they binned those chips for minimum 4.6 GHz. But what they did to bin, they said, was analyze the wafers, and once they knew where those type of chips would be in the wafer, they simply used those chips, so OC would be varied. Those wafers all came off the same fab line. So here we have a chip tested at higher clocks than what it was sold for. Then testing those chips for power consumption, that is where that 91W figure they were quoted for was reached. Binning at a higher clock than what they sell for also is what gives us the large overhead. There is also the idea to consider that they don't bin silicon individually, they bin the wafer for a chip, those that fail get held for other bins. So those "4.6 GHz bins" in the 4770K were just out there in the mix, rather than pulled out specifically.

For retail chips, a similar binning process is probably used, but yes, only probably, since Intel nor AMD truly disclose how they bin their silicon. I am unaware of any chip maker of any kind disclosing how they bin their chips.

But, then AMD has said for Ryzen, the are binned for XFR. wht that means... I dunno. Does that relate to what SKU they are, or if that's for each chip no matter what SKU there were not clear about. Finding out might help us bin chips for benching though.

 

[cdawall]

Wow, that's quite big jump for only extra 100MHz on CPU. And even that OVER highly overclocked 7700k. Sure it's just one game, but still...

3.6ghz to 4.1ghz isn't 100mhz

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

So back in ,Windows 10 has scheduling issues with RyZen , over stating an smt core as a full core whereas Intel's are noted by software as a light core.
Hey presto then , when GPU limited RyZen ain't bad , in some CPU limited situations (1080p) we have a possible culprit but likely at least part of the issue , I'd love to see some 1080p runs with smt off though it would indicate the validity of this theory/drama stoker.

Shiz wrong thread doh ,left though as is

 

[RejZoR]

3.6ghz to 4.1ghz isn't 100mhz

Between 1800X stock and overclocked 1800X. See the chart, there are both listed. Stock is at 4GHz, OC is at 4.1GHz.

 

[phanbuey]

Between 1800X stock and overclocked 1800X. See the chart, there are both listed. Stock is at 4GHz, OC is at 4.1GHz.

yeah but the stock doesn't maintain 4Ghz - its 'somewhere between 3.6ghz and 4.0ghz' whereas the 4.1Ghz is 4.1Ghz always

 

[RejZoR]

yeah but the stock doesn't maintain 4Ghz - its 'somewhere between 3.6ghz and 4.0ghz' whereas the 4.1Ghz is 4.1Ghz always

Is there any info to back that up? Why wouldn't it maintain turbo clock? That's a guaranteed boost unless there are serious thermal issues in which case it wouldn't clock up to that. XFR is what's entirely up to headroom. But XFR is beyond 4GHz afaik.

 

[phanbuey]

Is there any info to back that up? Why wouldn't it maintain turbo clock? That's a guaranteed boost unless there are serious thermal issues in which case it wouldn't clock up to that. XFR is what's entirely up to headroom. But XFR is beyond 4GHz afaik.

http://www.overclockers.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/
scroll down to the clock speed... those 4.0/4.1 are only for 4 threads - I'm betting the scheduler bug has something to do with it too.

I can throw my 1800X in and take a look, but even the reviews where they OC it to 3.8-3.9 Ghz constant it still beats the pants off stock in multithreaded benchies.

 

[Kanan]

Weird result or possible future gaming performance when things work well?

http://www.eteknix.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-am4-8-core-processor-review/

This is the test system:

Looks fishy to me, I'd rather take a look at PCGH.de data, that website is trustworthy.

 

[RejZoR]

http://www.overclockers.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/
scroll down to the clock speed... those 4.0/4.1 are only for 4 threads - I'm betting the scheduler bug has something to do with it too.

I can throw my 1800X in and take a look, but even the reviews where they OC it to 3.8-3.9 Ghz constant it still beats the pants off stock in multithreaded benchies.

It should boost all cores. Only reason to only boost 4 cores means there are issues with Windows scheduling workloads.

 

[cdawall]

Between 1800X stock and overclocked 1800X. See the chart, there are both listed. Stock is at 4GHz, OC is at 4.1GHz.

It will not boost all 8 cores to 4ghz. Want to know how I know that? I unlike you, actually have one and unlike you who seems to find joy in arguing things you have literally zero idea about have actually dealt with this CPU. So unlike you, I with my personal experience am telling you as a statement of fact that the chip is overclocked from 3.6 to 4.1 and it is not a 100mhz increase hence why the performance change is so dramatic.

Any other questions?

 

[RejZoR]

I'd also be a smartass if I'd get every new hardware for free to test... And if you'd actually read instead of bragging how you're ruler of the world coz you happen to have Ryzen in front of you, I wasn't arguing, I simply asked the guy, because boosting only half the cores just makes ZERO sense. I don't need a CPU in front of me to know that doesn't sound right. Either you boost all until you reach thermal limits and if there is single thread, you boost even further while leaving other cores at base clock. It's how Intel does and it's what makes sense and is logical.

 

[cdawall]

I'd also be a smartass if I'd get every new hardware for free to test... And if you'd actually read instead of bragging how you're ruler of the world coz you happen to have Ryzen in front of you, I wasn't arguing, I simply asked the guy, because boosting only half the cores just makes ZERO sense. I don't need a CPU in front of me to know that doesn't sound right. Either you boost all until you reach thermal limits and if there is single thread, you boost even further while leaving other cores at base clock. It's how Intel does and it's what makes sense and is logical.

That is the exact way AMD and Intel boost has worked for years to exclude a handful of SKU's. Boost has existed for 10 years now and they way it works hasn't changed.