Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Vault-Tec, 6 Feb 2017.
"fake news" lol
It's a little naive, but those posts come from Gibbo and his information comes from 8 Pack. Now obviously there's a sales patter in there, but I don't think it's miles from the truth.
Edit. I have also noticed OCUK are now stocking an overclocked 1700 rig. It is clocked to 3.8, I would imagine that is across all 8 cores. It's just a regular rig (not an 8 Pack etc) so that may be where they feel comfortable with every 1700. Gibbo reported that you can get around 3.9-4.1 but only on the CH6 and Taichi.
And tbh? that makes sense to me. I bet the first thing they did when their tray of CPUs arrived was hand them over to 8 Pack and sent him off to a very dark room with no daylight
actually theres more than that - they are quoting users now saying they have benched to 4.8.....
edit: as for 8pack - he has his £24k pc to sell, and iirc someone mentioned he is sponsored by intel.
He may be sponsored by Intel but he's not going to bite the hand that feeds (IE his employer). I cry BS on the 4.8ghz. God knows who said that.
its to see if wccftech copies it as well
edit: but then again - some have staked their dubious reputations on the `fact` that it wont use anything better than 2400 ram , nor will it make 4ghz ever
Wccftech are idiots, would not believe a word they say.
Dunno man. We'll find out in good time
I think it will do 4ghz (the 1700). If Scan and OCUK have both settled on 3.8ghz then I think it's safe to say any one with half a jar of glue about overclocking will get 4ghz.
I do think that will be about the limit though, so any one thinking of 4.8ghz is dreaming. The 1800x did 5.2 on LN2.
4.8ghz may well be possible, just depends on the conditions, only one core enabled, grossly unsafe voltage, plus bench stable is very variable, back in the old days when hardware was cheap people used to do stupid stunts like that all the time, have an old timey screenshot of DDR2 breaching 500mhz (1000mhz effective) with 3-3-3 timings
Point simply being that if you are flexible enough on the criteria anything is possible, but of course you are right that no one will see 4.8ghz on all 8 cores on 1st gen Ryzen with a 24/7 usable cooling solution.
^ Damn, that brings back fond memories. I'm guessing that must be Micron D9GMH or D9GKX in these modules... don't know of any other DDR2 ICs that could do CAS 3 even at 800MHz far less 1000MHz.
I had (and possibly still have) a lovely 2GB Cellshock kit with D9GKX that did 4-3-3-8 daily for me at 950MHz on really low volts. I benched the same kit around three years ago at 1333MHz 5-5-5-15 to get me some easy hw points.
On topic, if the Ryzen 1700 can bench at 4.8GHz on readily available cooling, there's something deeply wrong with AMD's binning process. I'd guess 4GHz absolute max, otherwise what's the point in paying 40% extra for the 1800X?
I remember using a D9GKX kit that did 1280 with 4-4-4-8 timings on 2.35v, when it was 2.3v at stock. Absolutely awesome stuff.
I really wish I had my work visa so I could get my hands on Ryzen. I'll just have to wait to see reviews rather than posting my own. Humbug!
I am really excited to see the reviews, though...
Early leaks seems to indicate 'normal' overclocking getting to around 3.8 - 4.0 Ghz for the Ryzen 7 1700.
I don't think the higher end chips will get much beyond that, but hopefully they'll get to around 4.5Ghz with a good air cooler.
We are days away from the answer though
Speaking of reviews, check this
4.5ghz on all 8 cores 16 threads seems optimistic is a feeling. 4ghz all cores on a decent cooler could be done. LN2 is usually 1ghz ahead of what a normal setup can achieve.
Intels initial launch batch struggled to get close to it, was only second batch that had increased numbers.
Scan and OCUK have retail systems with 1700s in. They are both clocked to 3.8ghz. I would imagine this is all on 8 cores. They're not special rigs (no 8 Pack for example).
They will go for a clock that works on every chip and is stable. So, I will guess and say that 4-4.1 is the most you will see out of a 1700. It's usually a couple of hundred mhz off of what an overclocker would get (and possibly live with higher temps, higher voltage etc).
Whether the X models clock higher? possibly, but I am under no illusions that this is going to be an "overclocker's dream".
It won't be a gamer's CPU either. Well, not unless you were going to buy a 7700k to game on and thought "Hey I will get a 1700 instead". But I still think that they will be more than adequate for a good, smooth gaming experience.
I run my 5820k stock. I didn't want to put the stress on the VRMs etc unless it was absolutely necessary. With a OCed Titan X (1414mhz) I have never met a game that was not smooth at 1440p. I haven't tried Deus Ex on it though, but we all know the game runs like poo.
With the pricing and the performance of these new processors, it is a pretty enticing buy. Hmm, which is better for price to performance ratio? The 1700x or the 1700? Need advice.
No worries , I went when saw it + some .
Some how when I was contacting them I seem to have picked up TR TW, contacting me back , I think it was due to checking all their sites for info and not noticing I should try TR DE.
Don't know legitimacy saw this on Reddit.
Why does that not surprise me?
Makes a pleasant change
(BTW my only horse in this race is healthier competition and more bang per buck from both sides)
MSI have shown the expected OC range on Ryzen, looks more promising with 4.4ghz on R7 on their auto-oc.
I almost want that walnut box more than a Ryzen Cpu
Separate names with a comma.