unseenmorbidity
Golden Member
- Nov 27, 2016
- 1,395
- 967
- 96
AM4 Mainboard VRM Circuitry List
EDIT:
Strange. 13 seconds on stopwatch ~ 10 seconds in Windows
Ryzen or Windows 10 Timing Issue?
lol, I didn't notice that. Good catch! That Titanium pricetag is looking more and more ridiculous.Lol, the cheapest MSI motheboard ($80) uses the same VRMs as their top-end ($300) - just fewer phases. They must have a boatload of those Niko Semi PKs
lol, I didn't notice that. Good catch! That Titanium pricetag is looking more and more ridiculous.
I'm of the opinion that while they aren't as good efficiency or quality-wise as some of the very nice VRMs used by (e.g. Asus C6H/Asrock Taichi), they are more than adequate for 99%+ of users.
They BIOS lock my vcore on the $80 board to 1.4V and you hit diminishing returns on OC before that voltage anyways. You can easily do 1.3-1.35V for a stable 24/7 overclock and never notice the cheaper components.
The efficiency isnt the issue its the fact that they run so hot they tend to burn out after a few years if you push them to hard.
The efficiency isnt the issue its the fact that they run so hot they tend to burn out after a few years if you push them to hard.
The Tweaktown reviews used 4GHz, iirc. Though they only did the crosshair and the Taichi thus far.Lol, a 1700 at stock clocks on a test bench. That sets a floor maybe, but we are more interested in a ceiling.
Do a 1800X @ 4GHz 1.4V and let's turn up the heat to a 28C ambient. Then see how it does.
I think it is all bandwidth.
Higher speed RAM would help even more with the scores.
Here is my best run in a PC I built for a customer:
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12079421
Your system has a higher clocked GPU, higher clocked CPU, but slower clocked RAM, and that offsets it.
My personal observation is that physics test loves bandwidth.
The 1700X was overclocked using Ryzen Master. I could ave gone to 4.0GHz in that chip, but the voltage required was insane (1.425V) so the 3.9Ghz at 1.3875V was a nicer balance.
In dx9 games right? I know where you are going but serious. Under full load in bf1 an 7700k will have frametimes that runs under like 40fps while a 1800 never gets below the 70.Interesting chart, but should normalize for performance. I might not care about an extra 20W if the 7700K gets an extra 20 FPS.
Interesting nonetheless though.
In two tests which aren't true CPU tests. And the curious thing is that they used Autocad 2015 (assuming it's not a typo) for their power tests even though they used 2016 in their performance tests. And at least for 2016, the 7700K outscores the Ryzens significantly.Toms reviews 1700x and meassures power consumption under full load.
The 1800x uses less than a 7700k.
You can't tell from their measurements because they didn't do a power consumption reading using any such benchmarks where the Ryzen does have such a throughput advantage.The damn point is. under full load where a 1800x have a throughput that is like 60% more than a 7700k it uses slightly less energy.
That zen is highly compettitive even in desktop doesnt bode well for Intel.
Finally someone else here also addresses the Ryzen's position in server market. Breaking in takes some time sure, but power consumption is one of the major cost factors in data centers around the globe. Not only you need to distribute that energy, but you have to cool it down too. Having thousands of servers using tens of watts less each will for sure affect the business calculations when choosing the hardware. And the difference widens when the core amount rises. Intel's highest core amount per socket is now 22, price 4110$, TDP 145, but very low base clock 2.2GHz (highest over 8core Xeon base clock currently 2.6GHz). It's very interesting to see what the AMD's 32core Naple's brings to the table. At least more bandwidth, more max memory and 128threads vs Intel's 88 per one server. If AMD succeed here, their liquidity problems should be vanished for a while. As Naples is basically a pumped up Ryzen they have much more room for pricing on server side (Intel topping currently with that 4110$/CPU).In dx9 games right? I know where you are going but serious. Under full load in bf1 an 7700k will have frametimes that runs under like 40fps while a 1800 never gets below the 70.
The damn point is. under full load where a 1800x have a throughput that is like 60% more than a 7700k it uses slightly less energy. To me this looks like the cpu have a node advantage. It doesnt. It is just crazy efficient. And it goes for all loads to idle.
Bring this arch to 3 ghz levels and it looks to me a major part of Intel server line is seriously threatened.
This is bar none the most important metric and Intel simply doesnt look good.
Well the team stated very early they were looking at March for an initial release.What? That dang thing still isn't out? I've been patiently waiting for this, pretty much ignoring the slow progress, assuming it would be ready if I just stop paying attention...that was about 2 months ago.
It really needs to be considered as 1:1 ratio as the fabric is running at the speed of the memory controller, but the DIMMs are double data rate.