AMD Says Ryzen 1700X, 1800X Have a Temperature Reporting "Offset"

[SPLWF]

FX chips don't have an offset as far as I know but use the same method of calculating the temp directly in silicon as Ryzen. The only software I've seen AMD reps recommend that reads the temps for FX correctly was overdrive/core temp. The t.j.max for most FX chips is 80C.

Thanks, I will install core temp/overdrive and compare temps. Thanks again

 

[alucasa]

"Why wouldn't I be" perhaps is the more prudent question.

Cuz that turns a fine chip into a sucking chp, literally. Power consumption is one of my most important factors and that makes Ryzin almost no-go.

 

[cadaveca]

Cuz that turns a fine chip into a sucking chp, literally. Power consumption is one of my most important factors and that makes Ryzin almost no-go.

Well, that's part of getting this stuff for free... I don't care what it does, or how it does it; I just relay what I find out.

Someone linked a Tom's review showing 1800X @ 56W... that seems like lies to me.

I saw similar, but not as high from the 1800X's I tested with.

Yeah, so maybe I got a really bad chip. Who knows. With just one CPU to play with, the scope of my Ryzen experience might be a bit limited. I can't even get 3.9 GHz.

 

[alucasa]

1800x at 56w.... right... I'd rather believe those who still believe Earth is flat.

When Intel says X TDP, it tends to pull less or exactly so.

AMD's TDP has always been rather ... deceptive or their definition ot TDP rating may be something of average power consumption.

 

[Lightofhonor]

It doesn't when you see the power consumption. my 1700X pulls well over 200W @ 3.8 GHz. It seems that the chips are running into a frequency wall because of power consumption from what I see.

What voltages are you using? Most can do 3.8@1.245v. I have mine at 3.9 it tops out in the 145w range.

 

[cadaveca]

What voltages are you using? Most can do 3.8@1.245v. I have mine at 3.9 it tops out in the 145w range.

It is far too early in the launch cycle to say "most". You can find that info by searching my previous posts.

 

[cdawall]

Yeah, so maybe I got a really bad chip. Who knows. With just one CPU to play with, the scope of my Ryzen experience might be a bit limited. I can't even get 3.9 GHz.

It is probably just you. Send me the chip I can get it higher

 

[notb]

have you owned a skylake/kabylake intel cpu? haswell was also affected to a lesser degree.

No. Is it relevant?

i seem to have a rather unfortunate (but not the worst) 6700k specimen. the initial motherboard i got (gigabyte z170n-wifi which can burn in hell) had a hard throttle point at 60c. any kind of load whatsoever sent the cpu over that, with a ekwb predator 240 attached to it, this should really not have been the case.

That depends where the temperature sensor is. Chips warm up very quickly. If it's placed near the core (as it should), it will show rapid jumps in temp.

This is the expected behaviour. If your sensors show very slow increase of temperature, they're most likely not very well placed.

at bone stock it will even now go 70c+ easily with heavy load. that is with watercooling that should be way more than needed to get rid of the heat. cpu block is good enough, it worked fine-ish with haswell (<60c) and it was simply awesome with sandy bridge (40c-ish). among these, skylake uses the least power...

But 70*C is nothing extreme for modern Intel CPUs.
At a given load the temperature has little to no effect on performance, stability and power consumption.
Staying under the temp limit of chip is essential, pushing things lower is just a hobby.

 

[notb]

I don't think it's unfair because even their highest end 'gaming/mainstream' overclockable(that you pay extra for to be able to do) 7700K is using the same toothpaste and runs close to 100C when overclocked with the stock toothpaste and 25C+ lower by deliding and replacing the toothpaste with TIM that isn't quite as good as being directly soldered on.

That's true. But what bothers you in these 100*C? These greatly overclocked 7700Ks are stable.
The only issue is the BIOS, which often has a shutdown limit at 100*C.

7700K hits OC limits before temp limits. Sure, you can lower the temp by 25*C by replacing the TIM, but that doesn't mean you'll have extra OC margin (e.g. to get it back to 100*C at higher frequency). You simply end up with a cooler core.

Generally speaking, temperature will not harm your CPU until it reaches a melting point of something inside (possibly the solders - over 200*C). What kills CPUs under heavy load is the electricity (voltage or current).

 

[Lightofhonor]

It is far too early in the launch cycle to say "most". You can find that info by searching my previous posts.

Didn't find it, don't really care enough to search. But I was going off of this: http://oc.jagatreview.com/2017/03/overclocking-binning-10-prosesor-amd-ryzen-7-1700/2/

10 chips tested, all hit 3.8 @ 1.25.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

LOL, nothing to fix. Sure.

Hey, windows, how about you load two heavy threads on the same core, b/c you don't know the difference between logical and physical. It's totally going to run the same speed as putting each thread on real cores. Dippydingaling told me so!

Scale that up to more threads, plus, spread across the CCXs when the relevant threads could be put on one CCX.

AMD has MORONS speaking.

BTW, didn't anyone see benchmarks with a CCX shut off and SMT disabled? Magically, the bug is gone! AMAZING! lol

So you're saying amd themselves are lying, as well as the easily reproducable tests pcper did to also show that this is not the case, are also lying?

Man, how i miss being ignorant.

 

[prtskg]

1800x at 56w.... right... I'd rather believe those who still believe Earth is flat.

That's power consumption of 1800x with metro last light (FHD) according to Toms.

 

[OneMoar]

you hear that folks thats the sound of the AMD hype train approaching the ravine and the bridge is out ... ALL ABOARD
200w what
20c temp offset what
totally Window's fault that we tried sharing the l2/l3 cache accross multiple cores and once AGAIN it shits all over performance EXPECT software patch to address our mediocre hardware soon!
in the mean time goto into the bios and manually disable 4T

 

[Manu_PT]

Fail CPU launch is fail

 

[nem..]

1700X/1800X its mean cause the XFR tech , sure soon will aida64 will update to support read the acuure temps.

 

[cdawall]

you hear that folks thats the sound of the AMD hype train approaching the ravine and the bridge is out ... ALL ABOARD
200w what
20c temp offset what
totally Window's fault that we tried sharing the l2/l3 cache accross multiple cores and once AGAIN it shits all over performance EXPECT software patch to address our mediocre hardware soon!
in the mean time goto into the bios and manually disable 4T

Stock they are using what was described at least based off of how amd has always rated Cpus. The only time they even touch 200w is with an overclock, just like 2011v3 and v4 chips.

The cache sharing isn't what is causing multithreading losses.

"poor performance" in what? A handful of poorly threaded games? Outside of that it is competitive with a 5960x/6900k...

 

[EarthDog]

Nice AMD.. way to confuse your clients... SMFH....

 

[Manu_PT]

Good luck competing with Intel this way. Keep it simple, keep it simple. And launch the mainstream CPUs aswell, why bother launching 3 same CPU with just different brand on them, but no 6 core or quad core. So much excuses - poor games optimization, poor windows task handling, poor bios, poor this poor that. Fail cpu and chipset that´s all.

 

[notb]

Stock they are using what was described at least based off of how amd has always rated Cpus. The only time they even touch 200w is with an overclock, just like 2011v3 and v4 chips.

But it still draws a lot of power. Maybe not 200W - maybe just 120W with TDP and 150W with the tiny OC it offers, but that's still a huge compared to the TDP claim.
We already knew that Ryzen is not the best choice for gaming. With such high (and unpredictable) power consumption, it suddenly became a second choice for small computation rigs (e.g. for rendering). :/

"poor performance" in what? A handful of poorly threaded games? Outside of that it is competitive with a 5960x/6900k...

But almost no one plays games on 6900K. Why are people comparing to this CPU all the time?

As for optimization: you can't expect game manufacturers to suddenly jump to different designs, because AMD wants that.
If Intel doesn't join with mainstream >4C, this will never happen. Ryzen will remain a great gaming CPU for games that don't exist.

Honestly, what were they thinking? Release a POTENTIALLY futuristic (and potentially unnecessary) CPU for the enthusiast segment, which replaces gear every 2 years or so?
Why didn't they optimize for current games instead of demanding and optimization from everyone else?

 

[cdawall]

But it still draws a lot of power. Maybe not 200W - maybe just 120W with TDP and 150W with the tiny OC it offers, but that's still a huge compared to the TDP claim.
We already knew that Ryzen is not the best choice for gaming. With such high (and unpredictable) power consumption, it suddenly became a second choice for small computation rigs (e.g. for rendering). :/

Well people who actually know how AMD rates TDP are able to see the AMD TDP as being true. Weird how when you are no longer comparing maximum power draw (Intel) and rate heat (AMD)

But almost no one plays games on 6900K. Why are people comparing to this CPU all the time?

Why are you comparing a highly clocked quad core CPU to low clocked 8 core? I mean seriously what do you want? Did you want AMD to just dump out CPU's left and right hoping one of them would stick for the people who can't see past poorly optimized games from 2012? You are absolutely correct that most people do not play games on an 8C/16T processor. Guess what? Ryzen is one.

As for optimization: you can't expect game manufacturers to suddenly jump to different designs, because AMD wants that.
If Intel doesn't join with mainstream >4C, this will never happen. Ryzen will remain a great gaming CPU for games that don't exist.

There are currently only a handful of CPU's that use 8 cores. The frostbite 3 engine is one of the ones that does, overwatch uses 6, etc. We will start to see more and more games that thread up as time goes on. Remember all of the current consoles use 8 cores based off of junk AMD Jaguar. Tiny weak cores...AMD finally released a CPU that can compete with Intel in IPC. Why are you bitching? Because they don't have the 4c/8t models out with potentially higher clockspeeds? Take a chill pill and wait a couple months.

Honestly, what were they thinking? Release a POTENTIALLY futuristic (and potentially unnecessary) CPU for the enthusiast segment, which replaces gear every 2 years or so?
Why didn't they optimize for current games instead of demanding and optimization from everyone else?

AMD released their first 3 CPU's of a new lineup of CPU's on a mainstream platform. Enthusiast segment? Maybe if you are a poor enthusiast. AMD openly said this was mainstream, several times. Over and over again. Like they kept saying they aren't competing with intel's HEDT. Are you getting this? RYZEN ISN'T HEDT.

Any other comments?

 

[Aenra]

Sometimes i read comments and can instantly say "this guy works for a living", "this guy has no clue what work is". Not always, but definitely sometimes.

 

[OneMoar]

can use >4c != using them to any tangible benefit

 

[cdawall]

can use >4c != using them to any tangible benefit

If a lower clockspeed 8 core can compete easily or beat a high clocked 4 core than it is tangible.

Remember this is the first chip amd has dropped in a long time that can even remotely compete with Intel. There are bugs, less bugs than phenom 1 B2 had and yet that received way more praise...

The market has definitely shifted to people who are perfectly happy with next to zero improvements over a 6 year time span... That scares me.

 

[notb]

Well people who actually know how AMD rates TDP are able to see the AMD TDP as being true. Weird how when you are no longer comparing maximum power draw (Intel) and rate heat (AMD)

First of all I would like to say something important, before you try to mock me.
I'm not an Intel fanboy. My opinions might be slightly unfair or biased, because I'm deeply disappointed by the Ryzen platform.
With that behind us, let's go on with the bashing. ^^

Internet is full of people amazed by AMD vs Intel performance with the same power draw. AMD themselves presented Ryzen as a power consumption equivalent to i5 and i7 (65W, 91/95W).
So at this point I'm not really talking about what geeks know. I'm evaluating the "marketing" message and how this situation will affect people with less knowledge.

But yeah, If you want me to compare "power draw (Intel) and rate heat (AMD)", I can give you that.
AMD's TDP approach is idiotic, harmful and not very useful. But it's great for advertising.
Happy?

Let's just look at some numbers once more. There goes the 65W TDP... exploding under a low-profile heatsink that I've used for years with many ~60W rated CPUs.
https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/03/08/amd-ryzen-7-1700-review/6

Why are you comparing a highly clocked quad core CPU to low clocked 8 core? I mean seriously what do you want? Did you want AMD to just dump out CPU's left and right hoping one of them would stick for the people who can't see past poorly optimized games from 2012? You are absolutely correct that most people do not play games on an 8C/16T processor. Guess what? Ryzen is one.

Because it should be done. Because everyone does it. Because why not?
But mainly because Ryzen 7 1700 is widely promoted (by both AMD and fans) to be a better choice than 7700 at similar price. I assume such recommendation would have to be a result of doing a comparison. Don't you agree?

What happens here is:
1) AMD fans tell me: Oh man, Ryzen is so much better - you should buy it. Just check the reviews!
2) So I look at some results and they make me have doubts: about power consumption, platform features, software optimization towards 8 cores and so on.
3) AMD fans say: No no, man! You're doing it wrong! Look at Cinebench Multicore benchmark. You see now? We've told you Ryzen is better!

There are currently only a handful of CPU's that use 8 cores. The frostbite 3 engine is one of the ones that does, overwatch uses 6, etc. We will start to see more and more games that thread up as time goes on. Remember all of the current consoles use 8 cores based off of junk AMD Jaguar. Tiny weak cores...AMD finally released a CPU that can compete with Intel in IPC. Why are you bitching? Because they don't have the 4c/8t models out with potentially higher clockspeeds? Take a chill pill and wait a couple months.

And what if it won't change? What if >4c won't become a standard?
AMD made a bet that an 8c future is just around the corner a decade ago, followed by the release of Bulldozer in 2011.
And you know what happened? Nothing.
We were buying 4 core i5s in 2011 and we buy 4 core i5s in 2017. And the games are the same. And all the other software hasn't changed a lot.

IMO all Ryzen believers (including you) are forgetting one very simple fact. Trends in computers - including gaming - are driven by mobile devices [and AIO]. Desktops are a shrinking minority and will become a niche long before we'll see 8 cores in more than half desktops sold.

You can talk all day on how Intel and NVIDIA don't push high-end performance like they used to (I agree!), but the simple fact is: nowadays we have laptops with 7700HQ and GTX1060 that aren't much behind desktop counterparts. This year we'll see ultrabooks with this kind of performance.
AMD is deep in the woods in the power efficiency department - Ryzen being a huge leap forward and still coming short of what they'd need to compete with Intel.

Yes, Ryzen is hugely powerful and a great choice if you have a desktop with solid power supply and cooling.
But to those expecting a revolution in PC designs I can only say: it's a sad, sad situation.

AMD released their first 3 CPU's of a new lineup of CPU's on a mainstream platform. Enthusiast segment? Maybe if you are a poor enthusiast. AMD openly said this was mainstream, several times. Over and over again. Like they kept saying they aren't competing with intel's HEDT. Are you getting this? RYZEN ISN'T HEDT.
Any other comments?

I could be a poor enthusiast - what's wrong with that?
Or maybe I'm from a country where a Ryzen 1800X+X370 MB is more than an average monthly salary?
You've just told us that Ryzen is not an enthusiast product, but an elitist mainstream one. As in: it's mainstream as long as you consider iPhone 7 to be mainstream.

At $330 the 1700 is already way to expensive for most gamers (that's why they used to choose i3/i5 over i7 in the first place).

And BTW: AMD seems to agree with me. It's been said that they've prepared 1 mln Ryzen chips for launch (so the first few weeks at least). That's way less than what Intel sells.
Do you remember the "Ryzen already a top seller at Amazon" headlines? Not even 2 weeks have passed and they're already behind the most popular i5/i7 and FX8350.
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers...cessors/zgbs/electronics/229189&tag=tec06d-20

 

[Totally]

And what if it won't change? What if >4c won't become a standard?
AMD made a bet that an 8c future is just around the corner a decade ago, followed by the release of Bulldozer in 2011.
And you know what happened? Nothing.
We were buying 4 core i5s in 2011 and we buy 4 core i5s in 2017. And the games are the same. And all the other software hasn't changed a lot.

People are only buying 4c because that is what Intel only puts out at a widely affordable pricetag, >4c is out of reach of the large majority. Exacerbating the problem is that software isn't going to be written for minority hardware. So until Intel moves in the cheap 8c or AMD gains enough presence to be taken serious serious again by consumers/developers(I doubt that will happen by the sheer number of people d**kriding Intel's offerings) we'll continually be stuck in this 4c hell.

IMO all Ryzen believers (including you) are forgetting one very simple fact. Trends in computers - including gaming - are driven by mobile devices [and AIO]. Desktops are a shrinking minority and will become a niche long before we'll see 8 cores in more than half desktops sold.

People have been saying this year after year with slight alterations depending on the fad. Fad are long gone and PCs are still here. In fact contrary to what you said made a comeback last year.

You can talk all day on how Intel and NVIDIA don't push high-end performance like they used to (I agree!), but the simple fact is: nowadays we have laptops with 7700HQ and GTX1060 that aren't much behind desktop counterparts. This year we'll see ultrabooks with this kind of performance.

Ultrabooks? This year? Keep dreaming, any notebook with that kind of always has had some heft to it or is straight up labeled as a desktop replacement. I haven't heard of any sudden breakthroughs that allows them to package that kind of grunt into an Ultrabook.

AMD is deep in the woods in the power efficiency department - Ryzen being a huge leap forward and still coming short of what they'd need to compete with Intel.

Yes, Ryzen is hugely powerful and a great choice if you have a desktop with solid power supply and cooling.
But to those expecting a revolution in PC designs I can only say: it's a sad, sad situation.

I have to ask what are you comparing AMD Ryzen's power figure's to? I ask because it's not that far off from and pretty comparable to Intel's 69#0k, or are you expecting 4c power consumption from an 8c processor?

And BTW: AMD seems to agree with me. It's been said that they've prepared 1 mln Ryzen chips for launch (so the first few weeks at least). That's way less than what Intel sells.
Do you remember the "Ryzen already a top seller at Amazon" headlines? Not even 2 weeks have passed and they're already behind the most popular i5/i7 and FX8350.
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers...cessors/zgbs/electronics/229189&tag=tec06d-20

Have you tried actually shopping for Ryzen? Hard to sell chips when motherboards are just about out of stock everywhere.