3930K is still a beast. X79 might be a dated platform but you shouldn't feel rushed to upgrade.
2 Likes
This, I'm still rockin' a 2600K and I'm probably not gonna be upgrading for a good long while. Having the absolute highest numbers ever has never been my goal and though it is excellent that AMD is presenting real, proper competition to Intel, it still offers no incentive whatsoever for me to upgrade at the moment. Even at stock I've never felt that this machine was slow.
2 Likes
Yeah I don't expect bios updates to be dropping the temps by 5-10c unless there is some majorly fucked up bios code out there running ryzen.
Ya, those toy cpu coolers :) 250 tdp on mine . Makes me curious about slapping some of the best aircoolers on Ryzen.
something odd to note
took the CPU down to 3.8ghz and 1.3V and suddenly max of 68C
... i think im sticking with 3.8ghz on this cooler anyway lol.
apperently the CPU is very touchy to voltage... .05 volts more and it hits the tjmaxx... on this cooler.
Again. THIS IS JUST A SEMI DECENT COOLER. NOT A DUAL TOWER THING>>> YOUR RESULTS WILL VARY.
I havent even tested on an AIO yet lol.
also
@Fouquin what results have you gotten temp wise on the AIO you have at various speeds/volts
Will note that TTL's testing had the cpu also hitting 80c mark with a h115i dual 140 cooler, although 68c and 3.8ghz to me is VERY nice to see. That's way more in line with what I was wanting too see temp wise.
Well TDP is largely meaningless and they are all measured different ways.
It could happen the microcode was finalized only a few weeks ago. The platform is buggy as hell and there are a lot of issues with it. Although more it is likely just being reported more accurately. There were major issues with reported temps
I don't believe joker's ever got over 68C.
Ryzen doesn't OC well though. 4.0-4.1 looks the limit on all cores. Although the motherboards are so flaky and missing so many features that could change. Maybe slightly higher OCS or lower voltages which also seem to be reporting incorrectly at times
1 Like
76C @ 1.5v on silent settings. Anything under 1.4v is in the 65C range with the odd spike to 70C.
The 1700 is the oddball. 1.4v on that CPU and it runs at 56C max, no weird spikes and idle of 27C.
2 Likes
At work and Internet's out sorry if already posted but could a 1700 hit 4ghz with a 120mm Silverstone aio?
1 Like
AMD has historically been an absolute beast when it comes to Linux. While I'm going to be surprised if it's without hiccups on 4.10.1, I definitely have high hopes for Linux.
People were speculating that the 1700 was going to be a good chip for OC. Might just be accurate.
Those Cinebench scores are approaching double mine. Make me feel sad... Bruised ego I guess. I have yet to be disappointed by my PC's performance. In part because my need for a beastly render monster has gone. Back when I built this I have a youtube channel and was handling monster 300GB fraps files. I no longer make those videos so I play some games and then general PC stuff 95% of the time. Also I'm running Linux and 6 core, 12 threads at 4GHz would appear to be more than adequate. Looks like I'm talking myself out of needing a new PC. but I still want one...
1 Like
Downgraded my order from a 1800X to the 1700. More fun trying to get somewhere with overclocking knowing that theres something to be had there. I'll give individual core clocking a good try with the AMD software. Unfortunately I dont expect any UEFI sporting that feature any time soon.
I agree with the expectation that the current chips aren't too tightly binned for practical reasons, or more people should have gotten somewhere with their 1800X's.
And now that my gaming monitor died and is being sent to repair, I dont mind the wait. Gaming at 60 makes me queasy, sigh...
1 Like
According to Steve from Gamers Nexus the max temperature is arround 75°C
The max is in theory 75 but 85 is the shut down point.
1 Like
That's true, but the 1800X as well as the 1700(X) are beyond 60fps in 1080p games, which makes frame times more important in this specific case. If however, you decide to game in 1440p or 4k all high end CPUs are very close together from a fps-perspective. In this case frame times - again - are more important.
@wendell I'm looking forward to a Level1 in-depth analysis and how the 1700 competes against the 1700X.
@KemoKa73 That heavily depends on the things you do on your PC. Just for gaming, my 2500k was fine too^^
One thing that should be kept in mind when purchasing a gaming CPU is that both consoles, XBOX one and Ps4 (Pro), have an okta core CPU (without SMT). Which is why even gamers should aim for more cores than 4 when purchasing a new CPU.
1 Like
From what I understand, 4 of those cores deal with background processes while the other 4 are for the games.
Those CPU cores are not Bulldozer cores, either, I might add - they're Kabini cores, same as you find on the AM1 platform. They are not comparable to full desktop x86 cores like Ryzen or Kaby Lake. The cores are 15-20% weaker than those of a Core 2 Quad Q6600.
As far as optimization goes, that depends on the game developers - most games don't take advantage of more than 4 cores at the moment, and that's probably going to be a thing for a long time. Either way, console games don't exactly have the most shining history of good ports in recent years.
1 Like
Yeah I suppose, but the console is an 8 core PC now and DX12 is written for the Xbox. I don't see huge problem. How old are the 8 core console now?
Just looked and 2013. I bet the developers have a good understanding of 8 cores now.
4 for background taks seems a bit high, 6 would make more sense. That being said, this could be easily changed by an update. Also, a couple of months ago I read an article where it was speculated that scorpio might get Ryzen.
Another reason to make full use of all eight cores.
Still, there is a trend to use more cores (Wichter 3, ME:A, etc...). I think many ports are ok, but we tend to remember the few that really sucked (Batman^^).
@Dr.Venkman If @KemoKa73 is right their experience with it might be limited...
1 Like
Good understanding of 8 cores or not, implementing more and more threads in games becomes more difficult the more threads you try and dedicate to the game. You have to find things for the CPU to actually do. Parallelizing CPU loads in games is not easy because you run out of things for it to parallelize. And then once you've spent all that time and money programming the game run on more cores, it turns out that you get much larger boosts in performance with new releases of CPU architectures and graphics cards anyway. The cost-to-benefit ratio just starts dropping through the floor past 4 or 6 threads.