.

Status
Not open for further replies.
yeah the OCer in me was actually disappointed in the overclocking. If had to cry about my one letdown, that was it. I've said I wasn't a fan of the process even though I like the cores, that's what I mean.

There's just nothing to do.

Maybe taking a crap 4 core up to 4 Ghz will mean something when they get here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
I just can't believe the lack of headroom in overclocking. In this day and age they had to know they were forgetting about the enthusiest.
 
Man, the mention of Thunderbird, K62's brings a tear to my eye , those were the days! I still have my Athlon Slot A 700mhz CPU. I am disappointed too. I was really looking forward to building an AMD system for nostalgia, but if I can't overclock and play with it, whats the point? I don't do much on my PC other than play games, edit photos and create digital artwork from time to time. I guess I'll have to stick with my 6700K a bit longer.
 
I'm surprised that pre-release leaks and rumors were so positive...why did AMD mislead the public to this degree when they knew that once real benchmarks and performance were reviewed that it would come back to bite them...were they that desperate for all those pre-orders?...now I don't trust all the positive Vega rumors either
 
polonyc2 said:
I'm surprised that pre-release leaks and rumors were so positive...why did AMD mislead the public to this degree when they knew that once real benchmarks and performance were reviewed that it would come back to bite them...were they that desperate for all those pre-orders?...now I don't trust all the positive Vega rumors either
Click to expand...

Nothing was misleading. The numbers they showed were real . As usual the AMD fan boy train lost their brakes and went absolutely stark raving mad and had everyone saying stupid shit about how this was going to slaughter Intel at gaming. Yet given the IPC number and what we already knew was their clockspeed, how the hell was that going to happen? Divine intervention?

I like the cores, I like the product and I like AMD's future. If you or anyone else figured this chip would compete with Intel's high gaming CPU's then who's kidding who?
 
Last edited:
polonyc2 said:
I'm surprised that pre-release leaks and rumors were so positive...why did AMD mislead the public to this degree when they knew that once real benchmarks and performance were reviewed that it would come back to bite them...were they that desperate for all those pre-orders?...now I don't trust all the positive Vega rumors either
Click to expand...


 
Not really sure why people are surprised, AMD has been releasing cards and cpu's that are pushed nearly to the max out of the box for some time now. Doesn't mean they are bad, you just shouldn't expect them to OC like Intel's chips.
 
Like I said they mostly delivered at stock. Pound for pound against a 4 ghz Intel, things are alright. It's the lack of overclocking that is severely disappointing. I7 920's hit 4 ghz back in what 08? It's just not impressive. I'm not a intel fanboy in the least. They had a HUGE amount of time to leak true positive gaming benches and overclocking results. They didn't until last minute hand cherry picked stuff and LN2 oc'ing. Depressing.
 
polonyc2 said:
I'm surprised that pre-release leaks and rumors were so positive...why did AMD mislead the public to this degree when they knew that once real benchmarks and performance were reviewed that it would come back to bite them...were they that desperate for all those pre-orders?...now I don't trust all the positive Vega rumors either
Click to expand...

No clue. It doesn't help that AMD just does not have the name recognition of intel either. It's like they are deliberately not delivering. Maybe AMD is jumping out of the high end cpu sector? Who knows. I personally think if the next revision of Ryzen does not deliver AMD might want to re think just getting out of the high end cpu market for good until someone can come in to take over and deliver and bring that company back from the grave in the high end market. Maybe low to mid end only or pair up with a company?

And it's TRULY my opinion that ATI went down hard when they became a part of AMD. When they were ATI they innovated and strived to, and they delivered. The 9700 Pro was a godsend, it overdelivered.
 
Krenum said:
Man, the mention of Thunderbird, K62's brings a tear to my eye , those were the days! I still have my Athlon Slot A 700mhz CPU. I am disappointed too. I was really looking forward to building an AMD system for nostalgia, but if I can't overclock and play with it, whats the point? I don't do much on my PC other than play games, edit photos and create digital artwork from time to time. I guess I'll have to stick with my 6700K a bit longer.
Click to expand...
I burnt my slot A 700mhz athlon to death running it at 900mhz for 2 years with a GFD.
that machine was boss. worthy sucessor to my 500mhz celeron A.
 
drklu said:
Not really sure why people are surprised, AMD has been releasing cards and cpu's that are pushed nearly to the max out of the box for some time now. Doesn't mean they are bad, you just shouldn't expect them to OC like Intel's chips.
Click to expand...

Sorry man, I've overlocked dual and quad core Android phones higher than a Ryzen. 100 mhz if that on a modern day cpu is just pathetic. It's not even overclocking, it's like a turbo button or turbo boost.
 
ds
ShuttleLuv said:
Like I said they mostly delivered at stock. Pound for pound against a 4 ghz Intel, things are alright. It's the lack of overclocking that is severely disappointing. I7 920's hit 4 ghz back in what 08? It's just not impressive. I'm not a intel fanboy in the least. They had a HUGE amount of time to leak true positive gaming benches and overclocking results. They didn't until last minute hand cherry picked stuff and LN2 oc'ing. Depressing.
Click to expand...

Not at all suprised, GF 14nm is a clock whores nightmare. ala rx480. if these chips clocked to where they should, amd would have murdered intel and nvidia both in last 6 months, but the processes dont support the clocks. or so it seems.

*edit, although they must be stable as hell, because both clock reliably stable within a few percent of maximum in all cases.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
Sorry man, I've overlocked dual and quad core Android phones higher than a Ryzen. 100 mhz if that on a modern day cpu is just pathetic. It's not even overclocking, it's like a turbo button or turbo boost.
Click to expand...
if history has taught us anything, its that AMD is full of shit.
 
Thats true but still even 300-500 mhz of an overclock would be something.
 
lol

Has anyone verified if you can set the cores to 4 instead of 8 like on intel? Has it helped oc headroom? Are you 100% positive it's the cpu and not something to do with board design?
 
Last edited:
You are assuming AMD had that much headroom to work with, they didn't. They tweaked these chips as much as they could to perform as well as possible. If every Ryzen CPU had 300-400mhz in it, why wouldn't they just release a higher clocked part to be more competitive?

Intels have more headroom to O/C because they don't need to run balls out to compete with AMD.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
I just can't believe the lack of headroom in overclocking. In this day and age they had to know they were forgetting about the enthusiest.
Click to expand...
Are you aware how the first Intels on 14nm did? AMDs 1700 clocked to 4.1Ghz from 3.1(or is it 3.2)/3.7boost. A pretty fair OC for the first iteration on a still new node even with Polaris being 14nm.
 
This is on Samsung Low Power process. The goal was to get power usage under control, more than super high clock speeds, so getting near 5GHz like Intel was never going to happen.

If they built on a higher power process, it might get higher clocks but using so much power, you would still need extreme cooling to get there, and they would get a reputation for poor power usage.

Intel is the process king, and I doubt anyone can touch them on a good combination of both lower power and higher clock speeds. Intel won't Fab AMDs CPUs that will compete against them.
 
To be honest, although this too is one of the few negatives I have about Ryzen after the dust has settled, if the game compiler bs is sorted soon, it's more of a moot factor. I also find CPU OC since sandy bridge is too easy this day and age, I don't get as much fun out of it. GPUs a little more so I think because the gains are more easily felt. I really don't mind if something OCs or not though, as long as it works decently fast enough as is. I've had chips and GPUS that wouldn't OC for shit in the past, like literally a few mhz would crash, it's part of the game. As long as it performs well at rated or expected OC then hey, that's the ticket.
 
The only negative I've seen for Ryzen is the gaming performance at 1080p. From what I've seen the 1700x and 1800x are priced great from a content creation perspective.

I'm no CPU engineer so I don't know how much a bios update or optimization to games will improve performance. But from I've seen is at 1440p and 4k gaming performance delta shrinks. But I haven't seen many benchmarks at resolutions above 1080p.

Even though I was slightly disappointed with the gaming performance I don't think that means the CPU is garbage. I do think its enough to keep AMD relevant and force intel not to be lazy.
 
qbanb8582 said:
I'm no CPU engineer so I don't know how much a bios update or optimization to games will improve performance. But from I've seen is at 1440p and 4k gaming performance delta shrinks. But I haven't seen many benchmarks at resolutions above 1080p.

Even though I was slightly disappointed with the gaming performance I don't think that means the CPU is garbage. I do think its enough to keep AMD relevant and force intel not to be lazy.
Click to expand...

I don't think the CPU is garbage at all, just not as good as KL for games. For encoding and whatnot it's pretty great.

4K gaming is more GPU intense than CPU intense, this is why Kyle did the tests at low res in his 1700x review. The KL should have better longevity providing acceptable performance even at 4K.
 
Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 6950X / 3 GHz Product Details
Conquer the world of extreme gaming with the fastest performing processor on the planet: the Intel Core i7 processor Extreme Edition. With faster, intelligent multi-core technology that accelerates performance to match your workload, it delivers an incredible breakthrough in gaming performance.
Click to expand...

Wheres the outrage?! Muh $1800 CPU doesn't game as well as a $300 one!!!!!!

Oh wait.. you didn't expect a 10c/20t processor to do as well as a 5ghz 4 core in gaming?

Then why the fuck did you expect an 8/16 to do it?

AMD was going after Boradwell-E with Ryzen.. they succeeded.
 
rgMekanic said:
Wheres the outrage?! Muh $1800 CPU doesn't game as well as a $300 one!!!!!!

Oh wait.. you didn't expect a 10c/20t processor to do as well as a 5ghz 4 core in gaming?

Then why the fuck did you expect an 8/16 to do it?

AMD was going after Boradwell-E with Ryzen.. they succeeded.
Click to expand...

I expected it to overclock a tad bit better than a pentium 166mmx. OTher than the overclocking issues it's not a bad chip.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
I expected it to overclock a tad bit better than a pentium 166mmx. OTher than the overclocking issues it's not a bad chip.
Click to expand...

I can respect that, but get ready for it to be more and more normal as processes shrink. I'll be stunned if skylakeX has much at all left on the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
tangoseal said:
Oh my Fing ass another thread about Ryzen and gaming.

Get a fucking real GPU for crying the F out. Im sick and tired of this played out argument. So what your getting 7 fps less at 200fps already. Good God.
Click to expand...

I do have a real gpu.
 
tangoseal said:
Oh my Fing ass another thread about Ryzen and gaming.

Get a fucking real GPU for crying the F out. Im sick and tired of this played out argument. So what your getting 7 fps less at 200fps already. Good God.
Click to expand...

i think what's more pathetic is the assumption that people who are rocking 1080peasant are actually going to buy this.

they aren't and they are not Ryzen r7 series customers.
 
rgMekanic said:
I can respect that, but get ready for it to be more and more normal as processes shrink. I'll be stunned if skylakeX has much at all left on the table.
Click to expand...

I will jump for joy if the next revision overclocks but as you said probably mnot much left. I want AMD to succeed, it will get things flowing again from Intels monopoly.
 
It's an 8 core CPU, do you really expect phenomenal overclocking headroom? Even my 6 core 5820K tops out at 4.4 GHz so an 8 core hitting 4.0-4.1 isn't too bad. The issue to focus on is whether or not the R5 chips also hit the 4 GHz wall because if they do, then Ryzen will be a failure at the middle/low end of the spectrum. Their R7 CPUs are ok, not the best and I don't think anyone really expected that. But for what they offer, they're pretty decent.
 
No I expected a decent amount of headroom at 8/16, and the option to disable 4/8 and run as a 4/8 like Intel does.
 
Lol. Did you really expect this to overlock to 5ghz? This is when you can just blame yourself for having unrealistic expectations. No one really expected these chips to overclock way north of 4ghz. I expected 4.1-4.2 max. Knowing my 6850k hits the wall at 4.4ghz. So seeing these top out at 4 or little above is not surprising.

May be you didn't read the forms. Everyone here was assuming you don't get these past 3.6ghz and it will launch at 3.2.

It ended up being little better than expected in that regard.
 
I expected a decent overclock of 4.2 - 4.4 I don't think that's unreasonable being the way it was touted and the new chip design. I never expected it to hit 5ghz at 8/16.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
I expected a decent overclock of 4.2 - 4.4 I don't think that's unreasonable being the way it was touted and the new chip design. I never expected it to hit 5ghz at 8/16.
Click to expand...

All Intel 8 cores max out st 4.3 ghz. Unless you have a golden sample. Tomshardware is pretty spot on when it comes to stable overclock. I hit the exact stability numbers as them on my 6850k. I think you will probably see zen max out at 4.2-4.4 ghz max in the newer revisions down the road with overclocking . We won't see much more than that until you 7nm.
 
qbanb8582 said:
The only negative I've seen for Ryzen is the gaming performance at 1080p. From what I've seen the 1700x and 1800x are priced great from a content creation perspective.

I'm no CPU engineer so I don't know how much a bios update or optimization to games will improve performance. But from I've seen is at 1440p and 4k gaming performance delta shrinks. But I haven't seen many benchmarks at resolutions above 1080p.
Click to expand...

Only one I've seen at 1440P. Seems pretty competitive at 1440p if this review is true.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top