Ryzen benchmarking and overclocking results

[Johan45]

Is this the newest CPU Z you got installed? I thought I saw it report 2x4 Cores as in accounting for CCX'es.

I think Intel killed a lot of fun off by limiting overclocking to K cpus. Those Skylake parts that were able to overclock despite not being K on Z boards weren't very prominent in the overclocking scene because most bought the K cpus anyway.

Yes very latest CPUz and I think it was AIDA64 initially that was reporting as 2 CPUs IIRC. The nonK skylake were just not practical, needed a special BIOS and it disable temp monitoring and AVX instructions so in the end they only kind of overclocked.

 

[Kanan]

The nonK skylake were just not practical, needed a special BIOS and it disable temp monitoring and AVX instructions so in the end they only kind of overclocked.

Well at least @Raevenlord uses such a system, but he's one of only a few I saw doing this.

 

[infrared]

Yes very latest CPUz and I think it was AIDA64 initially that was reporting as 2 CPUs IIRC. The nonK skylake were just not practical, needed a special BIOS and it disable temp monitoring and AVX instructions so in the end they only kind of overclocked.

I saw some 6600/6700's that overclocked further than my 6700k back before intel veto'd bclk overclocking. Such a shame that was short lived.

edit: well, almost as far. It kinda made sense intel would want to stomp that out. Anyway sorry, /offtopic lol

 

[Raevenlord]

Yes very latest CPUz and I think it was AIDA64 initially that was reporting as 2 CPUs IIRC. The nonK skylake were just not practical, needed a special BIOS and it disable temp monitoring and AVX instructions so in the end they only kind of overclocked.

Well at least @Raevenlord uses such a system, but he's one of only a few I saw doing this.

I don't use any workloads which require AVX instructions, and keep a conservative vCore for it (didn't try to OC to 4.5 or such.) That said, besides downloading a specific BIOS from MSI's site, no hard work involved at all, and everything works smooth as silk. Couldn't be happier with my choice at the time. Pretty incredible price/performance.

 

[Kanan]

There you go

@infrared I think it's fine at least if we still talk about CPUs.

 

[blacktruckryder]

Bit the bullet and picked up a 1600 and a msi x370 pro carbon. Pretty impressed so far. Feels just as peppy as my 7600k @ 5Ghz. Fairly close in single theaded benchmarks. The 7600 comes out on top, barely.

Managed 3.9Ghz @ 1.37v.

4Ghz is just out of reach though. Even with 1.45v it wasn't stable.

 

[r9]

I see all this comments about insane voltage and stuff.
If the cpu is stable and the temperature is at check you are not hurting the CPU.
Before anything it will become unstable.
Here's one of my old overclock E5200 @1.7V on air.

 

[r9]

People here seem to have a hard time to understand the simplest of things. A single CPU doing what, 4.25 GHz, at high voltage, because of silicon lottery luck, is no fucking evidence on "better Ryzen yield" and "higher frequencies". Now this is the last time I'm gonna explain it, after that I'm in ignore mode and laughing.

It has to start somewhere.

 

[Kanan]

It has to start somewhere.

The problem is, it's mainly a architectural problem, do you think it's a coincidence all Ryzen, whether 4 or 6 or 8 core, run into a wall at about 4 to 4.1 GHz, I mean 99% of them? Either it's a architectural problem or the node is immature. I think it's architectural.

 

[cdawall]

It has to start somewhere.

Yep and we saw the same thing with phenom 1, by the end of life there were multiple chips all hitting into the 3.8-4ghz range, which was very similar to the Phenom II's on initial release.

 

[r9]

The problem is, it's mainly a architectural problem, do you think it's a coincidence all Ryzen, whether 4 or 6 or 8 core, run into a wall at about 4 to 4.1 GHz, I mean 99% of them? Either it's a architectural problem or the node is immature. I think it's architectural.

Core count doesn't mean anything they all start as the same silicon.
Its always a bit of both. But improving yields as unavoidable, especially considering the jump from 32nm to 14nm.
I'm pretty sure they can improve.
I find it bit odd too that all those CPU's are so close binned.
That's something that you can expect from mature process.

 

[cdawall]

Core count doesn't mean anything they all start as the same silicon.
Its always a bit of both. But improving yields as unavoidable, especially considering the jump from 32nm to 14nm.
I'm pretty sure they can improve.
I find it bit odd too that all those CPU's are so close binned.
That's something that you can expect from mature process.

I have seen a 200mhz spread for the 1700x vs 1800x pretty consistently.

 

[r9]

I have seen a 200mhz spread for the 1700x vs 1800x pretty consistently.

What is the spread for i7 7700 for example ?

 

[Kanan]

Core count doesn't mean anything they all start as the same silicon.

That's wrong, as it's clear that Intel CPUs with lesser core's clock clearly higher. I'd say that's dependant on architecture as well and differs.

I find it bit odd too that all those CPU's are so close binned.

They aren't so close binned, I was just talking about the best Ryzen's, a lot of them only do less than 4 GHz, some of them less than 3.9 or 3.8 GHz.

 

[hat]

I see all this comments about insane voltage and stuff.
If the cpu is stable and the temperature is at check you are not hurting the CPU.
Before anything it will become unstable.
Here's one of my old overclock E5200 @1.7V on air.

Excessive voltage will kill parts. It's not just temperature.

 

[cdawall]

What is the spread for i7 7700 for example ?

They all seem to hit 5 if you have the voltage and cooling...

 

[FlanK3r]

More in: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...s-in-action-thuban-and-ryzen-together.232981/

 

[fullinfusion]

They all seem to hit 5 if you have the voltage and cooling...

And higher.. 5.2 at 1.44v.. did 5.3 on the weekend but yes 5ghz pretty easy.

 

[Johan45]

Finally had time to freeze my 1600X, one bonus was I was able to keep mem speed up 32-3300 MHz even at -180°

1. 

 

[ratirt]

Nice that you have tried it. 5.2 is impressive but the Vcore is enormous. If this 1600x could run 5ghz with a reasonable vcore it would have been best CPU ever and kicking. The only question is why does the 1600x is being recognized as 12c/12t? Is that what it normally is? 6c/12t should've been right?