Discussion AMD Ryzen MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

[jdwii]

@jdwii, TDP stands for 'Thermal Design Power' so yeah. It's inherently not an electrical power dissipation measurement as its intended to help builders choose the correct thermal solution. People tend to confuse the two as electrical power dissipation does directly translate to thermal, they are linked, however neither company actually rate their parts like that...

Be nice if they did and Amd could have a decent advantage if they aren't being cheap like Intel since overclockers are delidding their haswell+ chips my processor would actually benefit from it as i can boot to 5Ghz stable at 1.31V and pass stress tests but temps get way to hot for my liking(over 80C) so i deal with 4.8 at 1.25V which i guess is better for the chip anyways.

 

[jdwii]

The first RyZen review?

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/first-ryzen-7-1700x-review-finds-its-way-onto-the-web.html

Look at the comments from the site and now prepare yourselfs for comments once full reviews come out.

 

[french toast]

Strong rumours that the IMC in ryzen is actually very good, just extremely buggy bios that is being updated everyday.
Reviews are going to throw up some strange results that may be rectified weeks later.

 

[rgd1101]

MERGED QUESTION
Question from rds1220 : "Lots of questions about Ryzen"

So I was set on going with Intel on my next build but now that AMD Ryzen is finally out I'm waiting and leaning heavily towards AMD. IF...and that's a big if I go with AMD (I want to see real world performance first) what should I get if the computer is only for gaming? Should I go with the Ryzen 3 which is four cores four threads or set it up to one of the higher end models. Is the old mantra of you don't need more than 4 cores for gaming still standing true or are we at the point of games using more cores? Also I've been out of the loop for awhile now what is the difference between an X and non X version of Ryzen?

You should wait the extra day to see how it performs (March 2nd) before you start asking these kinds of questions.

 

[salgado18]

MERGED QUESTION
Question from rds1220 : "Lots of questions about Ryzen"

So I was set on going with Intel on my next build but now that AMD Ryzen is finally out I'm waiting and leaning heavily towards AMD. IF...and that's a big if I go with AMD (I want to see real world performance first) what should I get if the computer is only for gaming? Should I go with the Ryzen 3 which is four cores four threads or set it up to one of the higher end models. Is the old mantra of you don't need more than 4 cores for gaming still standing true or are we at the point of games using more cores? Also I've been out of the loop for awhile now what is the difference between an X and non X version of Ryzen?

You should wait the extra day to see how it performs (March 2nd) before you start asking these kinds of questions.

But do consider the Ryzen 5 as the probable sweet spot for gaming: 6 cores and higher clocks (and overclocking potential). Games nowadays hardly see an advantage over 4 cores / 8 threads, but while that is changing, 8c/16t processors will hardly use their full potential anytime soon. Unless money is not an issue, then I'd say get the 1800X, which is better for overclocking than the 1700(x) and gives you the most power.

 

[Ryan_282]

While I don't understand this, if 1700 can be overclocked to 4g. What's the point of 1700x?

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-3dmark-multithreaded-benchmarks-leaked/

 

[warmon6]

Hmmmm.... https://twitter.com/GamersNexus/status/837026790526881797

Twitter:

@JayzTwoCents
It's literally 1 day before Ryzen launch and AMD is still sending emails last minute changes to testing methodology. Seriously??

@GamersNexus
@JayzTwoCents We have found a few major considerations for Ryzen testing that significantly impact results. Has taken several retests.

While i know amd want to show ryzen with it's best foot forward.... I would have thought that AMD would have had a final review testing guideline before now instead of changing it around so many times at the last minute.

Maybe something to do with the pre-launch bios issues?

 

[juanrga]

The information that I have is that XFR is not an all-core turbo.

There are eight frequencies defined in Zen. Four of them are for engineer's interest only like F_boot (the boot frequency) or F_min, the minimal working frequency (actually 550 MHz on desktop chips). The other four frequencies are of consumer interest: F_P0, F_TMT, F_TST, and F_MAX.

F_P0 is the base frequency. It was 3.15GHz for the engineering sample used by Canard in their preview. It is 3.6GHz for the 1800X model.

F_TMT is the all-core turbo. It was 3.3GHz for the engineering sample. I don't know its value for the 1800X. I know it is somewhat between 3.65GHz and 3.8GHz.

F_TST is the 1-core turbo. It was 3.5GHz for the engineering sample. It is 4.0GHz for the 1800X.

F_MAX is a second 1-core turbo. This frequency is not predefined by AMD. It is a variable frequency that depends on measurements of several on-the-fly parameters like the temperature. Different 1800X chips will have a different F_MAX depending on silicon lottery and the quality of the cooling you have installed. This is an auto-overclocking turbo. This is XFR.

I've had a thought about this (pure speculation here)- however do we know much about how the different frequency / turbo values are defined? I wonder if F_TMT is actually a derivative of F_MAX- whilst F_TST simply defines the default value for F_MAX unless the system determines a new (higher) value based on operating conditions? If F_TMT is defined as a proportion of F_MAX (e.g. F_TMT = 0.9 * FMAX) then as XFR increases the maximum single core turbo the max all core turbo would increase as well. Given the chip monitors power and thermals at a high rate the F_MAX would vary on loading anyway so I don't see any logical reason why it couldn't increase the all core turbo slightly if cooling allows for it (though the all core turbo would always be less than the highest single core frequency)...?

F_TMT is a fixed value pre-defined. It cannot be a percentage of a non-fixed value as F_MAX. For instance for the engineering sample used on Canard review F_TMT = 3.3GHz. I don't know the value of F_TMT for commercial chips, but if I had to guess I would say that F_TMT = 3.75GHz for the 1800X model, for instance.

X editions have no all core turbo...

The all core turbo on 1800X is 3.6 GHz.

Those two sentences contradict each other. Also 3.6GHz is the base clock, not the all-core turbo.

Exactly.

The baseclock is the all core turbo outside of XFR.

There *is* no all core turbo by conventional turbo specs. It is only XFR, and XFR is across all cores.

No. The base clock is not the all-core turbo. The all-core turbo is between the base and the 1-core turbo frequencies reported in the above table. For instance for the 1800X the base clock is 3.6GHz, the 1-core turbo is 4.0GHz and the all-core turbo is between 3.65GHz and 3.8GHz. I guess it must be about 3.75GHz.

For the ES tested by Canard the base clock was 3.15GHz, the all-core turbo was 3.3GHz, and the 1-core turbo was 3.5GHz.

How can XFR be turbo across all cores when F_TMAX is only defined as 1-core?

F_TMAX is single core turbo...it is *not* defined as XFR

AMD confirms that XFR is one-core boost.

https://videocardz.com/66745/amd-ryzen-7-press-deck-leaked

Therefore for the R7-1800X:

F_P0 = 3.6GHz (base clock)

F_TMT = 3.7GHz (all-core turbo)

F_TST = 4.0GHz (single-core turbo)

F_TMAX = 4.1GHz (single-core XFR turbo, 4.1GHz with stock cooler and higher with better cooling I assume).

 

[Redneck5439]

I've been following another thread on the upcoming Ryzen release, and I hope that it doesn't skew the reviews and benchmarks for Ryzen.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-3345749/amd-ryzen-motherboards-pose-heatsink-pressure-problem.html

If the heatsink isn't positioned properly due to this issue then a lot of reviews may have low benchmarks due to thermal throttling and heat related issues. Hopefully AMD fixes this quickly, but it may already be too late for the review systems already sent.

 

[Redneck5439]

While I don't understand this, if 1700 can be overclocked to 4g. What's the point of 1700x?

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-3dmark-multithreaded-benchmarks-leaked/

Every generation, every new processor release we have people posting things like this and even worse suggesting to everyone to just get he cheaper processor and overclock it to the settings of the more expensive one. The problem with doing this is not every processor has the same silicon binning and therefore there is no guarantee that processor "A" will hit the same clock speed as processor "B".

In this case we have the R7 1700 vs the R7 1700X. There is no guarantee that every R7 1700 will be able to overclock and hit the same performance level as the R7 1700X. The R7 1700X is going to have better silicon and better binning than the R7 1700 so it is guaranteed to run at the performance level its specked to.

I already know beyond any doubt that there are going to be tons of recommendations of "just get the R7 1700 and overclock it to 3.6Ghz or to 4.0Ghz and you have a R7 1800X for $180 less. Its not that simple and its bad advice as the R7 1700 and R7 1700X aren't going to have the same binning as the R7 1800X. There will be "golden" samples of each tier processor that somehow get a really good binned silicon and those will hit higher overclocks than other processors in the same bracket, but the vast majority of processors are going to perform within their specks. For most processors the R7 1700 will have the lowest overclocks and the R7 1800X will be able to obtain the highest overclocks. Telling someone to get the 1700 and overclock it to get the same performance as the 1700X or 1800X is bad advice as you have no way of knowing if the processor they get will be able to overclock to those levels. Some processors can only manage a very minor 100Mhz, others can be pushed much higher, its all luck of the draw. That's why we call it the "silicon lottery".

 

[salgado18]

Have you seen this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOZbK3tP7EU

This guy says the R7 1700 is soldered, which is good. The video doesn't show a close up of the CPU, but if it really is the 1700, that's good news.

 

[Ryan_282]

I'm sorry for the confusion. What I was really wondering is X vs non-X. Again, this is purely discussion since I have no idea how the XFR actually works.

Let's say you could manually OC a 1700 to 4G or 3.9G. While 1700X will boost to 3.7G but anything beyond that point is upto XFR, which is automated "if you have a high end air cooler" per AMD. Does that mean if the CPU thinks you don't have a "high end air cooler", it will limit your clock at 3.7? Will AMD give XFR user two options of OC, automatic and manual? I'll be disappointed if they end up locking the clock by temperature, since I have a small case and always running on the warmer side.

While I don't understand this, if 1700 can be overclocked to 4g. What's the point of 1700x?

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-3dmark-multithreaded-benchmarks-leaked/

Every generation, every new processor release we have people posting things like this and even worse suggesting to everyone to just get he cheaper processor and overclock it to the settings of the more expensive one. The problem with doing this is not every processor has the same silicon binning and therefore there is no guarantee that processor "A" will hit the same clock speed as processor "B".

In this case we have the R7 1700 vs the R7 1700X. There is no guarantee that every R7 1700 will be able to overclock and hit the same performance level as the R7 1700X. The R7 1700X is going to have better silicon and better binning than the R7 1700 so it is guaranteed to run at the performance level its specked to.

I already know beyond any doubt that there are going to be tons of recommendations of "just get the R7 1700 and overclock it to 3.6Ghz or to 4.0Ghz and you have a R7 1800X for $180 less. Its not that simple and its bad advice as the R7 1700 and R7 1700X aren't going to have the same binning as the R7 1800X. There will be "golden" samples of each tier processor that somehow get a really good binned silicon and those will hit higher overclocks than other processors in the same bracket, but the vast majority of processors are going to perform within their specks. For most processors the R7 1700 will have the lowest overclocks and the R7 1800X will be able to obtain the highest overclocks. Telling someone to get the 1700 and overclock it to get the same performance as the 1700X or 1800X is bad advice as you have no way of knowing if the processor they get will be able to overclock to those levels. Some processors can only manage a very minor 100Mhz, others can be pushed much higher, its all luck of the draw. That's why we call it the "silicon lottery".

 

[8350rocks]

I'm sorry for the confusion. What I was really wondering is X vs non-X. Again, this is purely discussion since I have no idea how the XFR actually works.

Let's say you could manually OC a 1700 to 4G or 3.9G. While 1700X will boost to 3.7G but anything beyond that point is upto XFR, which is automated "if you have a high end air cooler" per AMD. Does that mean if the CPU thinks you don't have a "high end air cooler", it will limit your clock at 3.7? Will AMD give XFR user two options of OC, automatic and manual? I'll be disappointed if they end up locking the clock by temperature, since I have a small case and always running on the warmer side.

While I don't understand this, if 1700 can be overclocked to 4g. What's the point of 1700x?

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-3dmark-multithreaded-benchmarks-leaked/

Every generation, every new processor release we have people posting things like this and even worse suggesting to everyone to just get he cheaper processor and overclock it to the settings of the more expensive one. The problem with doing this is not every processor has the same silicon binning and therefore there is no guarantee that processor "A" will hit the same clock speed as processor "B".

In this case we have the R7 1700 vs the R7 1700X. There is no guarantee that every R7 1700 will be able to overclock and hit the same performance level as the R7 1700X. The R7 1700X is going to have better silicon and better binning than the R7 1700 so it is guaranteed to run at the performance level its specked to.

I already know beyond any doubt that there are going to be tons of recommendations of "just get the R7 1700 and overclock it to 3.6Ghz or to 4.0Ghz and you have a R7 1800X for $180 less. Its not that simple and its bad advice as the R7 1700 and R7 1700X aren't going to have the same binning as the R7 1800X. There will be "golden" samples of each tier processor that somehow get a really good binned silicon and those will hit higher overclocks than other processors in the same bracket, but the vast majority of processors are going to perform within their specks. For most processors the R7 1700 will have the lowest overclocks and the R7 1800X will be able to obtain the highest overclocks. Telling someone to get the 1700 and overclock it to get the same performance as the 1700X or 1800X is bad advice as you have no way of knowing if the processor they get will be able to overclock to those levels. Some processors can only manage a very minor 100Mhz, others can be pushed much higher, its all luck of the draw. That's why we call it the "silicon lottery".

The 1700X has higher base clock and higher TDP. I would imagine that between the X and non-X variants there would be a slight deficiency in the 1700 to OC as high as the 1700X because of binning.

As for thermal limits, XFR does not work that way. It is simply a built in turbo system that allows a higher envelope of performance with top notch cooling. You can disable turbo in the BIOS manually and set a manual OC.

 

[gamerk316]

While I don't understand this, if 1700 can be overclocked to 4g. What's the point of 1700x?

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-3dmark-multithreaded-benchmarks-leaked/

Every generation, every new processor release we have people posting things like this and even worse suggesting to everyone to just get he cheaper processor and overclock it to the settings of the more expensive one. The problem with doing this is not every processor has the same silicon binning and therefore there is no guarantee that processor "A" will hit the same clock speed as processor "B".

In this case we have the R7 1700 vs the R7 1700X. There is no guarantee that every R7 1700 will be able to overclock and hit the same performance level as the R7 1700X. The R7 1700X is going to have better silicon and better binning than the R7 1700 so it is guaranteed to run at the performance level its specked to.

I already know beyond any doubt that there are going to be tons of recommendations of "just get the R7 1700 and overclock it to 3.6Ghz or to 4.0Ghz and you have a R7 1800X for $180 less. Its not that simple and its bad advice as the R7 1700 and R7 1700X aren't going to have the same binning as the R7 1800X. There will be "golden" samples of each tier processor that somehow get a really good binned silicon and those will hit higher overclocks than other processors in the same bracket, but the vast majority of processors are going to perform within their specks. For most processors the R7 1700 will have the lowest overclocks and the R7 1800X will be able to obtain the highest overclocks. Telling someone to get the 1700 and overclock it to get the same performance as the 1700X or 1800X is bad advice as you have no way of knowing if the processor they get will be able to overclock to those levels. Some processors can only manage a very minor 100Mhz, others can be pushed much higher, its all luck of the draw. That's why we call it the "silicon lottery".

On this point: I got the one 2600k that simply won't run stable at 4GHz, and the majority of those things get to the mid 4's no sweat. There's always a few lemons; never purchase a CPU on the assumption you can OC it to make up for performance.

 

[jdwii]

Have you seen this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOZbK3tP7EU

This guy says the R7 1700 is soldered, which is good. The video doesn't show a close up of the CPU, but if it really is the 1700, that's good news.

Was just going to post that, one more thing Amd did right with this.

 

[MaDDD]

Not sure if this has been linked already but it's apparently tests from someone who got the 1700x early

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-delivered-early-benchmarks/?utm_source=wccftech&utm_medium=related

 

[010TheMaster010]

Looks like it'll be 9AM CST

 

[-Fran-]

Looks like it'll be 9AM CST

Finally!

Let's keep an eye across the board on the CB scores. I wonder what Asus is doing sending that BIOS out, or maybe AMD.

Cheers!

 

[juanrga]

I'm sorry for the confusion. What I was really wondering is X vs non-X. Again, this is purely discussion since I have no idea how the XFR actually works.

Let's say you could manually OC a 1700 to 4G or 3.9G. While 1700X will boost to 3.7G but anything beyond that point is upto XFR, which is automated "if you have a high end air cooler" per AMD. Does that mean if the CPU thinks you don't have a "high end air cooler", it will limit your clock at 3.7? Will AMD give XFR user two options of OC, automatic and manual? I'll be disappointed if they end up locking the clock by temperature, since I have a small case and always running on the warmer side.

The X models have a 100MHz XFR boost and the non-X models have 50MHz XFR boost. I guess those numbers are only for the stock cooler and better cooling will increase it.

For the 1700X:
Base clock = 3.4GHz
Single core default turbo = 3.8GHz
Single core XFR turbo = 3.9GHz

For the 1700:
Base clock = 3.0GHz
Single core default turbo = 3.7GHz
Single core XFR turbo = 3.75GHz

 

[salgado18]

The X models have a 100MHz XFR boost and the non-X models have 50MHz XFR boost. I guess those numbers are only for the stock cooler and better cooling will increase it.

For the 1700X:
Base clock = 3.4GHz
Single core default turbo = 3.8GHz
Single core XFR turbo = 3.9GHz

For the 1700:
Base clock = 3.0GHz
Single core default turbo = 3.7GHz
Single core XFR turbo = 3.75GHz

Last minute question: does that slide imply that we need an X370 board to use XFR? I was under the impression that it would work on B350 boards too.

 

[MaDDD]

B350 boards can use XFR also.

EDIT:

Another apparent leak... http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-review-processor-leak/

 

[gamerk316]

B350 boards can use XFR also.

EDIT:

Another apparent leak... http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-review-processor-leak/

Eyeballing a few things:

Ryzen IPC looks a bit better then the Cinebench leak from yesterday. And those AIDA64 results show the benefit of AMDs built in AES hardware. But OMG those memory scores.

 

[salgado18]

B350 boards can use XFR also.

EDIT:

Another apparent leak... http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-review-processor-leak/

Eyeballing a few things:

Ryzen IPC looks a bit better then the Cinebench leak from yesterday. And those AIDA64 results show the benefit of AMDs built in AES hardware. But OMG those memory scores.

Cache latency is up to 3 time higher than the Intels, and memory latency is higher too. However, performance is comparable in some places, and slightly slower in others. Bonus: M.2 performance of X370 is way better.

How long does one and a half hour take?

 

[thegentlewoman]

IT's so strange, sun raises before at East but we have to wait West to learn about new technology. This is so monopolistic and innatural.
Anyway besides philosophy, will a EVGA 650 W GQ work with a x370 mother board well? Thanks, sorry for the config questions. I know it's kinda early.

 

[warmon6]

And reviews are live!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951.html