-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
FEATURED AMD ZEN Discussion (Previous Rumor Thread)
- Thread starter Johan45
- Start date
OP
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2012
- Thread Starter
- #1,582
A few more bench results. Comparisons of 3DMark physics. Article seems a little odd borrowing scores from here and there but it is what it is http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-3dmark-benchmarks-leaked-faster-core-intels-i7-6950x/
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
Wow. The $259 6c/12t equaling the performance of a $600 processor... at a lower frequency too.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO
That 4C/8T is still looking yummy! That's the lower end one too, the better 4C/8T has a base clock 300mhz higher.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
Looks like anyone running 4ghz on any part number is going to have a fast processor.
My favorite part about these is they pretty much confirm that the boost clocks are not in use yet. The performance they show at 4 ghz means the stock chip is running at 3.4 not 3.8, meaning the 300-400 dollar procs are a fair clip better than the 6900k at much reduced price (in this work load, but it seems to be a trend if not true for everything). With boost the 4c will fall just short of the 7700k. If all chips OC to 4 ghz then an OC 4c/8t looks like a 7700k at stock. If the 4 cores go to 4.5 ghz, then they are almost equal performance in an overclockers eyes (but more fun 
) for probably half the price.
) for probably half the price.So in the end, it has more cores while costing less. Since most don't use more than 4c/8t, the core argument, in my mind, isn't an argument (unless you use them of course). So, AMD seems to finally match performance and goes under on price..
W00t!
W00t!
My favorite part about these is they pretty much confirm that the boost clocks are not in use yet. The performance they show at 4 ghz means the stock chip is running at 3.4 not 3.8, meaning the 300-400 dollar procs are a fair clip better than the 6900k at much reduced price (in this work load, but it seems to be a trend if not true for everything). With boost the 4c will fall just short of the 7700k. If all chips OC to 4 ghz then an OC 4c/8t looks like a 7700k at stock. If the 4 cores go to 4.5 ghz, then they are almost equal performance in an overclockers eyes (but more fun
You don't know that. All benches should be under the heavy speculation lens.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
Turbo is not for all cores running 100%.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
That physics test won't let you hit turbo, it loads 100% across all available cores.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO
Side note: anyone know how XFR will handle 'better cooling'? Is it still going to behave as turbo boost does, or is it deeper. I haven't dived deep into their announcement from CES, but I do recall seeing stuff about auto overclocking.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
Read into the actual tech, it's much deeper than normal turbo.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO
So we are looking at more like a base clock adjustment, IE all cores can be boosted at a given time?
I need to stop looking into ryzen so much and spend more time working on me EE classes [emoji14]
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
That is my understanding, but we don't have a 100% detailed description yet.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
From my understanding on the Turbo vs Boost is Turbo is a set clock rate at which some or all cores will reach.
The "Boost" is self enabled (probably on the higher end boards) determined by the cooling used. The Cpu/Board will automatically "overclock" based on temps.
Boost may not be the actual term btw. Self adaptive might fit the bill better.
Sensing, adapting and learning tech built right in!
Similar threads
