-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD Ryzen Thread: Affordable Core Act
- Thread starter ·feist·
- Start date
Nostremitus
Member
Easier to use your influence to stir shit than lower prices and lose profit.
I thought Ryzen didn't put as much beef into AVX compared to Kaby Lake?
DemonCleaner
Member
ryzen RAM scaling to 3600 MHz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZS2XHcQdqA
yeah 1070 in there, but interesting nontheless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZS2XHcQdqA
yeah 1070 in there, but interesting nontheless
dr_rus
Member
Those who expected Intel to react right at Ryzen's launch were smoking pipes from the start. Intel has no reason to even if Ryzen would actually be better than what they sell performance wise. It would take the market several months, if not years, to get rid of inertia it got during the last ~10 years. No reason to cut your profits until they'll actually start to fall due to competition.
I just got my Gigabyte X370 Gaming K7 board from Newegg, and here's a bit of info that I hope will help someone else...
If you're planning on using a CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Evo with this board, be aware that it will block the fourth DIMM slot on this board if you have RAM that is slightly taller than low profile...for example, a G.Skill Trident Z will not fit
(Fortunately I am replacing a dead machine and was able to salvage the H100i cooler from it, but yeah that was frustrating to find out)
If you're planning on using a CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Evo with this board, be aware that it will block the fourth DIMM slot on this board if you have RAM that is slightly taller than low profile...for example, a G.Skill Trident Z will not fit
(Fortunately I am replacing a dead machine and was able to salvage the H100i cooler from it, but yeah that was frustrating to find out
)Nostremitus
Member
I just got my Gigabyte X370 Gaming K7 board from Newegg, and here's a bit of info that I hope will help someone else...
If you're planning on using a CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Evo with this board, be aware that it will block the fourth DIMM slot on this board if you have RAM that is slightly taller than low profile...for example, a G.Skill Trident Z will not fit
(Fortunately I am replacing a dead machine and was able to salvage the H100i cooler from it, but yeah that was frustrating to find out
The heatpipes blocked it? Or the fan was in the way?
If it was the fan, it can be shifted up ever so slightly so that it's not on the RAM.
On a different note, I've got my 1700X at 4GHz first try. I just set the voltage to 1.3 and upped the multiplier, ran some tests before I headed out, seems stable... Gonna try for 4.1 tomorrow.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Doesn't help that Ryzen's launch (admittedly in line with other tech launches, so should have been expected) only covered the high end, particularly competing with chips that not even most enthusiasts go for. They are currently appealing to a minority of the market - sure, the most financially affluent part, but a minority nonetheless. Everything below that range is practically unchallenged, whether for personal PC builders, or for those buying laptops - Intel is the CPU manufacturer for any device that has a keyboard and a screen stuck together.
cyen
Member
Just to give an example, im gaming\general use stable at 1.25v with 1700 at 3800. Need 1.31v to be Y-Cruncher stable in avx tests.
Nostremitus
Member
Not so bad...
http://valid.x86.fr/t2k6tk
http://valid.x86.fr/bench/t2k6tk/1
Just wish I could get my RAM speed up...
Couldn't get it to boot at 4.1 though...
http://valid.x86.fr/t2k6tk
http://valid.x86.fr/bench/t2k6tk/1
Just wish I could get my RAM speed up...
Couldn't get it to boot at 4.1 though...
Seriously at that speed it's as good as a 7700K. At 4000 Mhz it'd handily beat it. Ryzen was designed to sell faster DDR4.
hanspampel
Banned
ryzen is promising
i really consider to wait for zen+ cores or wait if intel will go to 6 core in the cheap mainstream segment
i really consider to wait for zen+ cores or wait if intel will go to 6 core in the cheap mainstream segment
Good luck with Ryzen, Kambing!
Fortunately the RAM I'll be using is indeed 2x8GB, manufactured by Samsung and is the recommended model/frequency from AMD... It's just ASUS that aren't playing ball, as despite seeming like a perfect fit for Ryzen, this RAM doesn't feature on the X370 PRO's QVL!
I too will report back - I should have this system done by Wednesday, when my monitor arrives. This is my first ever build, and it's been a long time coming - but I'm really excited to get up and running!
-EDIT- Good to see higher frequency RAM making the difference in FPS - glad I settled on 3200MHz now! Hopefully this combined with the May microcode will see Ryzen really pull ahead!
You have to keep in mind that this is at unsafe voltages and without doing any stability testing. So that's quite misleading.
Anything over 1.35V is reducing the life of your CPU, even if you have sufficient cooling.
Interesting results there - though even just finding ram which will run at 3600MT/s on Ryzen seems to be difficult.
That said, I don't think it's a fair comparison to use 3200MT/s RAM on the 7700K when boards support up to 4266MT/s speeds.
It won't change anything for the games which benefit from having more cores, but should make a noticeable difference to the results.
Even if the issue was what he had available to test with, we know that he has 3600MT/s RAM. Why hold back the 7700K?
It also concerns me that he's raising the base clock (BCLK) to 123MHz.
A lot of these tests are with systems that only have a GPU in them and no other PCIe hardware.
I've previously had difficulty using PCIe devices (sound cards, capture cards etc.) with the base clock raised more than a few percent.
I've also seen reports that raising the BCLK by more than 6% or so will result in the link dropping to PCIe 2.0 speeds, and going higher can even drop that to PCIe 1.0 speeds.
Dropping to PCIe 2.0 speeds won't affect most single GPU setups much, but will make a difference if you're using an NVMe SSD for example.
So it's another test which produces good numbers, but is probably not sustainable in the real world for anything other than benchmarking.
It goes back to what I was saying earlier about RAM specs; do any manufacturers specify what RAM you're getting with certain products, or is it just luck?
Is there anything which will guarantee that you get Samsung B-Die RAM that can run at high speeds when using a 1T command rate?
It seems like that's what G.SKILL are going to be doing with the FlareX memory - but even then they don't seem to specify what you're getting.
I can only find that available as a pre-order without a ship date on sites right now, and only the 3200MT/s kits.
I do know that if you buy the TridentZ RGB, they all seem to be using Hynix RAM.
I'm glad I didn't buy a 4266 kit in advance of this launch - when prices were about 20% lower than they are now - as I wrongly assumed that anything binned that high would work well on any platform, even if it had to be run at reduced speeds.
And ultimately a test like this doesn't mean much if you're planning on using the system for workstation tasks and not just gaming exclusively - which seems to be what people are pushing the platform for.
ECC memory is limited to 2400MT/s or 2666MT/s speeds, and I can't find any good information about 2666MT/s being usable on Ryzen right now.
The 2666MT/s RAM is only available in 4GB sizes single-rank, and 8GB sizes dual-rank.
You need to drop to 2400MT/s for 16GB sticks, and they're all dual-rank as well.
So you could have 8GB at 2666MT/s but that's not enough for gaming now, let alone workstation tasks.
16GB would be dual-ranked, which drops the speed to 2400MT/s.
To have 32GB you would need 2x16GB right now, which limits you to 2400MT/s UDIMMs, and using four of them for 64GB would drop that to 1866MT/s.
I'm hoping that the upcoming EFI update for improved memory support helps with this.
ECC support is still the thing which makes the platform most appealing to me though, after Intel further segmented the Xeon E3s from the consumer i7s and moved them onto their own platform, raising the prices in the process.
I think that's ultimately what my disappointment with Ryzen's gaming performance has been though; I was hoping to build one system to do it all, but it seems like I'm probably going to end up with two separate builds if I want the absolute best gaming performance.
It doesn't make sense to build a workstation with anything other than a Ryzen CPU though, since Xeon prices are so much higher and you get so much less for that money.
cyen
Member
Well, its recommended by AMD to not go over 1.35 for sustained workloads but for example most Motherboards give more than that in auto vcore without any oc even. Most users will not even noticed that, i dont think going up to 1.4v will degrade the cpu that bad that will only last a couple of years unless you want to keep the cpu running 24/7 for over 10 years, XFR state sometimes gives 1.5V to one cpu core.
It seems that Ryzen is limited by data fabric speed that is 1/2 of the RAM speed, the RAM speed influence on overalll performance is much bigger on Ryzen than on Kaby Lake, the gains of Kaby Lake platform for going with faster RAM are much smaller than Ryzen, there are alot of tests with RAM speeds for the Intel Platform and it shows just that.
AMD just stated they are going to release a major microcode update in May to address this RAM compatibility issues, hopefully RAM speeds\RAM Brands will be a non problem.
This is not correct, i have a set of tridentZ RGB 3200 CL14 with B-dies from Samsung. The hynix RAM is from the C16 Kits.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Yeah, in the video itself Jayz even sets the voltage down from what the motherboard had set by default. Actually kinda weird too - unless I'm simply showing my lack of familiarity with motherboard manufacturers being silly with auto OC - that when he set it to manual, the voltage automatically adjusted itself to be even higher than what it had before.
Yeah, a lot of places have been saying that RAM speed doesn't make much difference on Intel recently, to justify hobbling its performance with slower RAM.
There are diminishing returns as you reach the highest speeds, and it's not going to make up for having half the cores in games where that matters, but if RAM speed didn't matter on Intel platforms, 4000MT/s DDR4 wouldn't have minimum framerates on par with the average framerate of 3000MT/s DDR4 in some of these tests.
Hopefully! But it's a lot to go from 1866MT/s to 2666MT/s with four sticks of dual-rank memory.
Bumping everything up a multiplier seems reasonable though, which would let you have 16GB of 2666MT/s ECC memory - though I'd prefer 32.
Good to know - but this backs up my point about not knowing what you're buying.
Manufacturers should be putting out detailed specs for RAM instead of people having to guess or hope that they get the good stuff.
There's nothing which says that all C14 kits are using single rank Samsung B-dies that support a 1T command rate, so they could swap it out for something else that supports the same advertised speed at any time.
Your motherboard vendor isn't the one that has to replace your CPU if it dies prematurely due to overclocking, so they're going to be a bit aggressive on the voltages to ensure that the system is stable.
AMD says that 1.35V is the maximum safe voltage to run these CPUs at, so I wouldn't push it any higher.
This probably means for a certain amount of time, like 8 hours a day for five years. The more you push that voltage up, the shorter the lifespan of the CPU will be.
If you have the power saving features enabled (using offset voltages) it should be scaling down when idle which helps prolong the life of the chip compared to running it at a fixed voltage.
Even if you set 1.35V in the UEFI, load-line calibration could potentially push it higher, so that's another thing you need to be careful of.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
I would hope they do revised analysis periodically.
I ordered the 16x2 Trident 3200 CL14. Now I am wondering if I should get even faster memory but is the price difference worth it?
This is true. Only when Intel sees a shift will they react. Right now it's premature.
D
Deleted member 59090
Unconfirmed Member
Just overclock it later on with slower timings.
cyen
Member
If its b-die its "almost" guaranteed that will do 3600 at cl16 and maybe 3866 at cl18. But as with every OC nothing is 100% certain.
Übermatik;232752099 said:
Lol -- I have the same exact RAM. On the backside of the RAM stick there should be a barcode. On the bottom right there is a version number. Mine says "ver 5.39". So I am hopeful that we are both good!
The impact that increased RAM speed has is certainly making me feel a lot better about my decision to go with Ryzen -- in the video posted above every game had a higher min frame rate, relative to the 7700k, except for TR. This applies for 3200 and 3600 ram speeds. HELL YEAH.
Woohoo, same! Ah man that's great news, put my mind to rest, thanks for the tip! And likewise! It's good to know we'll be getting the most out of Ryzen - this 1700 + 3200MHz RAM combo is going to do wonders for my productivity in 3D design, PLUS it's proving to pull ahead of comparative Intel 'gaming' CPUs. Really happy with this setup!
Beerman462
Member
Those simulated Ryzen 5 benchmarks look really good.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Übermatik;232755973 said:
That's the combo I settled on too, the motherboard I picked out is the MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon.
How is DDR4 compatibility with the Pro Carbon?
The only thing preventing me from jumping is memory compatibility anxiety.
What A Time To Be Alive
Member
Had my 2600k at 1.38v for like 5 years. Yeah it reduces the life but unless you stay with the same cpu for like 10 years its honestly not gonna matter.
As long as your not over 1.4v and the temps are not over like 80c on a consistent basis I think its fine.
The 'safe' voltage for those CPUs was also 1.35V, so 1.38V is barely over. Depending on your usage, it doesn't surprise me that it's been fine for 5 years at that voltage.
Your 2600K is also a 32nm processor while Ryzen is 14nm. Smaller processes are more susceptible to electromigration as you put more voltage into them. I don't believe that temperature is as much of a concern.
1.45V is more than I'd consider using if I intended to keep the system for more than a couple of years, and it wasn't even tested to see if the system was stable at that voltage - more could have been required to make that 4.1GHz overclock stable.
Overclocking Intel CPUs does not disable turbo either, so they are not running at full speed/voltage all the time. My 2500K jumps between 1.5-4.5GHz depending on CPU load, and reduces the voltage when it's at lower clockspeeds.
Overclocking Ryzen runs the CPU at a fixed frequency/voltage; it disables turbo/XFR.
I believe there are some motherboards which offer P-state overclocking which can be used to restore some of that functionality though.
What A Time To Be Alive
Member
Still as long as the voltage is under 1.4v it will be fine for a good 6-7 years probably longer, by the time it dies youll probably be on your next cpu.
What are you basing this on?
Just because your 32nm 2600K was fine running at almost 1.4V does not mean a 14nm CPU will be.
And it was 1.45V in the video, not 1.4V
If you plan on keeping the system for more than a couple of years, you make sure that your overclock stays within the safe voltage ranges.
Nostremitus
Member
The MSI Carbon has a "Game Boost" setting that disables manual overclocks, sets the clock speed +500MHz and sets the voltage at 1.45.
Good luck! I took a risk and went for the ASUS X370 PRIME PRO... Hoping it works straight out of the box.
Level1Techs —— AMD Ryzen: Part 1 The Chip, The Myth, The Legend
RE: Overclocking
So far we've had a few links to Ryzen CPU and RAM overclocking like the ones posted here:
http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=232551221&postcount=1993
http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=231737159&postcount=1457
http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=231736118&postcount=1455
If any of you come happen to have some good one feel free to post them.
I have other written and YouTube OC guides to post. I'll be gathering a number of them into a single post, and linking that to an overclocking section of the OP for quick reference.
I'll also be adding some of the RAM speed performance scaling links that have been posted to the existing memory scaling portion of the OP.
Thanks to everyone who has contributed.
·feist·;231746495 said:
WccftechTv —— Ryzen 7 1800x Heavy Multitasking - Gaming and Rendering Demo
So, been playing around with my 1700 on an msi b350 tomhawk board for a couple days. Updated the motherboard bios to the latest version right away, and been able to get my G. Skill Ripjaws up to 3200mhz. It works great compared to my old 8320, and I've been able to overclock it to 3.9 ghz with the stock cooler without much issue.
I say much, because for some weird reason every other time I turn on my computer the CPU clocks itself to 3.2 ghz and I have to adjust it in Ryzen Master back to the old profile. I'll have to look into why it's doing that, but, regardless, it's working fine. I was thinking about taking the coolermaster aircooler from my old CPU and getting a bracket to use it for this one, but the stock cooler is quiet and efficient enough that I don't really care at the moment.
One weird thing I saw is that in the MSI bios, there's a game mode profile for overclocking. I say weird, because it puts the CPU to 1.45 V while overclocking it to only 3.5 ghz... Which makes no sense, because I've got my cpu at 3.9 ghz at 1.32 V just fine.
Yeah, this is what I'm talking about, it makes no sense for the 1700.
I say much, because for some weird reason every other time I turn on my computer the CPU clocks itself to 3.2 ghz and I have to adjust it in Ryzen Master back to the old profile. I'll have to look into why it's doing that, but, regardless, it's working fine. I was thinking about taking the coolermaster aircooler from my old CPU and getting a bracket to use it for this one, but the stock cooler is quiet and efficient enough that I don't really care at the moment.
One weird thing I saw is that in the MSI bios, there's a game mode profile for overclocking. I say weird, because it puts the CPU to 1.45 V while overclocking it to only 3.5 ghz... Which makes no sense, because I've got my cpu at 3.9 ghz at 1.32 V just fine.
Yeah, this is what I'm talking about, it makes no sense for the 1700.
DemonCleaner
Member
did anyone allready get R7 + DDR4 4000 running?
VideoCardz —— AMD Ryzen CPU with 12 cores and 24 threads spotted
OzTalksHW —— Gaming on the Ryzen R7 1700 - RAM/Memory Speed Matters!
http://www.overclock.net/t/1625300/...for-core-clock-for-clock/300_30#post_25957543
Not that I'm aware of. IIRC, pre-launch Asus posted some RAM overclocking results hitting ~3500/3600MHz, but I haven't seen anyone hitting ~4000MHz memory on 24/7 use.
OzTalksHW —— Gaming on the Ryzen R7 1700 - RAM/Memory Speed Matters!
http://www.overclock.net/t/1625300/...for-core-clock-for-clock/300_30#post_25957543
BF 1 mud and blood first checkpoint. 3200 mhz ram vs 1333 [vs 2400], same timings for both.
Affinity set to first 4 cores- 100 % cpu usage - low graphics settings- 1080 res- DX 11- cpu clocks locked
3200 mhz = 79 min 88 ave 96 maximum
2400 mhz= 61 min 84 ave 91 maximum
1333 mhz= 56 min 60 ave 70 maximum
The 212 Evo heatsink can only be mounted so the fan is perpendicular to the DIMM slots on this board, so it's the heatsink itself that blocks the slot.
I think I must have screwed up mounting the H100i because I am getting thermal throttling with the fans on max at full CPU load...
All Ryzens seem to be about 80% of a 7700k in gaming(the 8 cores beating or equaling it in heavily multithreaded scenarios), the tests of simulating the six and four core variants seem to point to those being about the same at a much lower price and both those variants beat the 7600k more often than not.
So, for gaming I'd say Ryzen falls between a 7700k and 7600k, at this very minute anyway.
Nostremitus
Member
You should be able to mount it either way by adjusting the bracket, or is their a different bracket now?
80% doesnt sound so much but when given the FPS numbers its pretty big.
Like in this newest DF video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDvk9_iTq6Y
Witcher: 100-120 vs 140-150
Tomb raider: 70-90 vs 110-140
Farcry: 60-100 vs 100-160
As 144hz screen user 7700k is no brainer still I guess, hope Ryzen can do something about it before I go and upgrade my pc sometime soon.
For a Hyper 212 Evo you need a new AM4 bracket available from Cooler Master. It hooks onto the two plastic tabs to the sides of the CPU socket so there's really only one orientation possible (well, two if you count rotating it 180 degrees, but you'll have the same problem).
I just reapplied the thermal paste on the H100i and I am only hitting about 3.3Ghz on all cores in Prime95 with the fans maxed out on an 1800X, no overclocking. Is this expected or should I start looking for a new cooler?
Edit: Wasn't applying enough thermal compound, apparently. Maintaining 3.7Ghz on all cores so far at stock settings now.
Nostremitus
Member
Oh..
Their AM4 mount isn't Like their others? That sucks...
Hardware Unboxed Ryzen CCX Performance: 2+2 vs. 4+0
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4-3000
Hardware.fr 2+2 vs. 4+0
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
n/a DDR4-2400 15-15-15-35 1T
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4-3000
Hardware.fr 2+2 vs. 4+0
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
n/a DDR4-2400 15-15-15-35 1T
Good to hear you got that sorted. Even a Hyper 212 Evo should easily run 3.7GHz locked all-core turbo "base" with frequent turbo/XFR into 4.0/4.1GHz with fairly good temps.
Regarding overclocking vcore voltage and memory compatibility:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-49#post-38814748
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-49#post-38814748
AMD Global Customer Care said:
Thanks for posting this.
Fantastic to hear that the 2+2 combination does not pose a problem.·feist·;232837041 said:
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yours is hardly the most scientific of methods lol. And a huge exaggeration in the performance gap.
Eurogamer did some benches in their review yesterday:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-amd-ryzen-7-1700-1700x-vs-1800x-review
neurosisxeno
Member
Which still shows the 7700k outpacing the 1700/1700X/1800X quite handily in gaming. Hell, the gap in Tomb Raider and FC
rimal is a solid 50%. That's pretty sizable.