FRONTPAGE AMD Ryzen 2700X and 2600X Sneak Peek

[ATMINSIDE]

I can do my own tests too you know just because some one posts a video on what they got doesn't mean that's what I am getting. Every system is different. I simply disagree with you and I can.
You can call me ignorant / stupid whatever. Wont change my mind. Bully words can not change the facts as I am getting them from my systems.
It's like everyone say's you wont be able to get past 4.0GHz on that Ryzen NO way!

Well I have hit 4.4GHz Not stable because of RAM BUT I will get that sorted out soon.

Please, do your own tests and show us that what Earthdog is saying is wrong.

At any rate:
- He isn't bullying you
- Just because you disagree (which you're certainly free to do) doesn't mean you're correct
- I'd love to see proof that you can actually get a Ryzen CPU stable at 4.4GHz, or even 4.2GHz.

If you don't have something constructive to contribute, don't contribute at all.

 

[EarthDog]

I can do my own tests too you know just because some one posts a video on what they got doesn't mean that's what I am getting. Every system is different. I simply disagree with you and I can.
You can call me ignorant / stupid whatever. Wont change my mind. Bully words can not change the facts as I am getting them from my systems.

Ahh yes, stage 3, the martyr........Nobody is bullying you trickson. I didn't call you stupid. I just said ignorant (on this subject). You can disagree... nobody is saying you can't. I am just trying to shed some light on things with the available facts/links/support. I would certainly trust any review and most youtubers over the testing you say you have done (but have yet to product a single screenshot/result comparing them).

Correct, every system is different within a percent or so (assuming the same speed/memory, etc). We are all waiting with bated breath for your comparison. My mouth is wide open ready to insert my foot.... always is. I can only go by the multiple reviews we have seen from reputable sites... where is your data you are holding so steadfastly by?

EDIT: Another gaming link - https://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/fea...ng-your-buck/gaming-benchmarks-overclocking-0

EDIT to your edit (the misinformation keeps coming!)

It's like everyone say's you wont be able to get past 4.0GHz on that Ryzen NO way!

Well I have hit 4.4GHz Not stable because of RAM BUT I will get that sorted out soon.

Everyone who has half a clue knows the 1700/1800x can barely get past their XFR rating. Anything past 4.1 GHz on any Ryzen is gravy and is NOT common.

Also, if RAM was really the problem at 4.4 GHz, simply lower it so it isn't a problem and show us that 4.4 GHz stable on all cores running a stress test for a few mins...again, we are waiting.

 

[trickson69]

Please, do your own tests and show us that what Earthdog is saying is wrong.

At any rate:
- He isn't bullying you
- Just because you disagree (which you're certainly free to do) doesn't mean you're correct
- I'd love to see proof that you can actually get a Ryzen CPU stable at 4.4GHz, or even 4.2GHz.

If you don't have something constructive to contribute, don't contribute at all.

OKAY! Got it. You are right and always will be thank you.

We are talking about the Ryzens new line up?
The new line will be nothing more than a speed up re-branding of the current offerings a tune up of the current offering if you will.
AMD is not even changing the name much like Intel and the 1-8 gen core series. You would think they would at least fake it to the market with better naming systems.

 

[deathman20]

Going to say its pretty well known that AMD systems haven't been great with majority of gaming cases over the years. Ryzen has closed the gap, and now with the Ryzen 2xxx series it seems like its getting even closer if not starting to match Intel on the gaming side. Though Intel is still ruling the land with gaming right now... maybe the tides will be turning and will benefit us all.

Now this is coming from a basically a hardcore Intel guy. I've had Intel for YEARS, and only ever had 1 AMD system, think that lasted a year before the Core series came out with Intel and jumped right back onto that wagon. All up for good competition and really hoping AMD finally was able to pull the rabbit out of the hat after all these years.

OKAY! Got it. You are right and always will be thank you.

We are talking about the Ryzens new line up?
The new line will be nothing more than a speed up re-branding of the current offerings a tune up of the current offering if you will.
AMD is not even changing the name much like Intel and the 1-8 gen core series. You would think they would at least fake it to the market with better naming systems.

Actually they are doing some changes to it. Reducing the latency on the Cache onboard which seems to be the biggest thing. Higher clocks and slightly higher IPC maybe? The performance increases right now might all be due to the lower latency cache on the chip which still improvements are improvements!

 

[EarthDog]

Thread cleaned... be nice and post useful information.

 

[trickson69]

If you want to watch the video cool, I did, however I did find the end to most useful. Look at the graph.
The FX 8300 is not at all bad nor is the Ryzen and as I said before AMD can and does game just as good as Intel.
There are tons more that show this same thing. you may say oh you are wrong but from what I see a 6 year old system holding up well. Given the fact that the FX 8300 is DDR3 and not DDR4 it is IMPRESSIVE to me. Must be a nut punch for you Intel boys though. I have yet to see why all the miss placed hate towards AMD they produced a great CPU and are still producing great CPU's Just like Intel why is that so hard to accept?
I do not think at all that AMD is Intel's killer none of them are killers to the other.
AMD offers up performance at the best price is what I see and Intel offers up the best over clocking performance for tons more cash! LOL.
I see how they do reviews too! Clock the Intel to 5.0Ghz while the AMD CPU is at 4.0GHz LMFAO! How utter brain dead is that? How about doing runs at STOCK then at the SAME OC? Nothing is fair if one is running at 5.GHz and the other at 4.0GHz what is fare and balanced about that? This is what makes me so angry you expect to blow smoke up my tail pipe with this kind of shady crud!

 

[Woomack]

and we back to the same again ...
FX was pathetic, even AMD said that ( maybe used other words ) ... even though not so bad in general performance then at least for me it was worse than i3 because of weird lags in some games that I was playing.
In games what matters is graphics card. CPU is not really important above some performance level ... and this level is ~4GHz/ 4-6 threads for couple of years now.
What AMD made wrong was to release "beta" product which they were later patching for a year. Now it's good but for many users, especially those who decided on early purchase, it left bad taste after all the memory/BIOS issues. What AMD advertised is starting to work long months after Ryzen premiere ... and now we have refreshed Ryzen which supposed to be mature enough to work good.

There are Intel and AMD fans, all can pick what they want as no matter which one will be chosen for games, both will handle that. Difference is in additional features and overclocking potential. Intel users want to reach magical 5GHz regardless if it's worth it or not. There is no point to argue over that.

 

[trickson69]

Agreed thank you for that. ^^^ Just not with the FX line being pathetic it wasn't what they HYPED it to be so it was a fail. If AMD wouldn't have put such huge high expectation and given out such delusions of grandeur the FX line wouldn't have been so hated on. Maybe?
My taste was not soured like most peoples were I guess, as I was using a Q9650 for the last 8 or 9 years I just now upgraded to the FX 8300 and the Ryzen 3 1300X great Chips and IMHO can play at Intel's level. oh and my FX 8300 is a Vishera not bulldozer.

 

[EarthDog]

I saw the graphs at the end which is all I need to see.

The FX 8300 is not at all bad nor is the Ryzen and as I said before AMD can and does game just as good as Intel.
There are tons more that show this same thing. you may say oh you are wrong but from what I see a 6 year old system holding up well. Given the fact that the FX 8300 is DDR3 and not DDR4 it is IMPRESSIVE to me. Must be a nut punch for you Intel boys though.

Trickson, you are spot on that the results are much closer/different there. They are closer because of a reason I already mentioned (post #37), because its tested at a GPU bound resolution of 1440p (so much for that nut punch...). My points are with a 1080p resolution (72% of people on steam use one... 3% for 1440p), where the CPU matters more. It is funny though you post that link for support and in the same post, talk about how jacked up the clocks and such are. For the record, the link wingman and I provided shows what I am saying at 1080p. Wingman's link shows them all at 4 Ghz 1080p res, and the link I showed is all at stock speeds 1080p.

Last, let me say that nobody here is disaparging AMD. I simply disagreed with the blanket assertion AMD CPUs are "just as" good as Intel CPUs when it comes to gaming. They are, in many titles, not as good unless they are at a higher resolution. AMD does offer up great performance /$, especially if you can use the cores. This isn't a point anyone has disagreed with. Its valiant you are jumping in to defend them, but, the arguments just aren't there and they never needed it in the first place. We know the merits of the chip and are thankful for its existance if only for competition's sake.

EDIT:

In games what matters is graphics card.

Right. Of course...Buuuuuuut, I don't see your point here when all that was said is they can put a glass ceiling on processors...surely the GPU matters, even at 1080p... that doesn't mean a CPU can't hold it back, regardless of clocks. The people who run 1080's and 1080TI's at 1080p, the high refresh rate peeps) NEED every ounce of horsepower they can get out of a CPU. ANd in many titles, the AMD CPU caps performance... even with a 1080 at 1080p with Ultra settings. 60 hz too! Who wants to cap their performance in any situation? Yeah, sure strap a governer on my bike because I can't go past the speed limit anyway..........




Can we (all) please stop throwing logs on the fire about the Intel and AMD comparison? I figured my clean up post would stop it... but apparently it has to be repeated.

NO MAS, POR FAVOR!

 

[Alaric]

I have a small collection of AM socket chips, and keep buying mobos for them (Thank you Johan45!) because they're fun and that's what I started with-you never forget your first one . Even if she was a recalcitrant b**** that argued about everything every step of the way. My daughter and my girlfriend both have 'Dozer/'Drivers and are completely happy with them, even with some light WoW thrown in now and again. I've said it before, 1080p@ 60 Hz presents no real challenge there with a decent VGA. I would agree Ryzen is "as good" in most gaming scenarios due to the majority of displays being like mine, 1080 or 1440 and 60 Hz, but the times they are a changin'.
The difference between 135 fps and 120 fps isn't real in the sense that it can't be seen under those conditions.

Having said that, when you start going to 100+ Hz refresh rates or higher resolutions the Intels start to shine, especially when the user starts winding up the clocks. My next build will probably be a Ryzen just because I'm a fan of AMD, but I try not to let that make me a fanboy of their chips if that makes any sense. My current rig is what it is just because I wanted to see high speeds, certainly not because I needed them. I'm building a 32 bit XP rig with a 980 BE for streaming and benching that will do those things for probably another 5 years or more, God and teh 'Kitteh willing. I fired it up on an end table with the PSU on a chair at 4 GHz first time with a stock AM3+ cooler

What we do at OCF is play mostly. We measure things that have very little real word application for 90% of the market. I like to think we make points about about differences between X or Y chip rather than actually argue. There are too many smart people with lots of experience here to assume I'm the last word on anything, so I don't. Since I don't make chips for Intel or AMD I don't take any of it personally. Keeps my mood light and I learn a lot that way.

 

[trickson69]

ONE more day!
Just ONE
1
1
ONE day left!

If the new line up is better I may just get the NEW R7!!! Replace the R3!

 

[Johan45]

Less than 24 hours and you'll see the results of AMD's labors over the last year.

 

[Thick8]

My 1700 runs at just below 4.1Ghz. I will probably wait for the Ryzen2 CPU next year unless the 2700x is just a beast that I must have.

 

[Alaric]

Less than 24 hours and you'll see the results of AMD's labors over the last year.

You know I'll be checking at 12:01 AM tonight, right? Front page of Overclockers, looking for your handiwork?

 

[EarthDog]

Cant say weve ever posted anything at midnight before... id get some rest.

 

[Alaric]

Drat! LOL

 

[Woomack]

My 1700 runs at just below 4.1Ghz. I will probably wait for the Ryzen2 CPU next year unless the 2700x is just a beast that I must have.

I already know it's better than your 1700, not sure if it's worth to replace it. My 1700X wasn't good and could make stable 4.05GHz ~1.44V. I've replaced it with 1920X just because prices went down and I wanted quad channel with some more cores. I can make 4.1GHz 1.41V on air cooling so I'm quite happy about it ( seems stable but I wasn't testing for more than 1h ).