I have skt 2011 sandy at work with 32GB of ram, SSD and a nvida GPU for cuda programming. At home web surfing and movies and at most GTA san andreas that is manageable by this old laptop... I am not a gaming guy...
Yeah I see that now lol.
Just shows how much being a few years behind can do to you!
Uhm, Intel CPUs certainly do not have that problem, that much is known.Until now, the south bridge was external and probabily not invested by the LN2 and so it was at sane temperatures.
Well, at this point, that should be considered. Though i find it surreal if that actually takes place.One should use a bench that gives time elapsed, like handbrake, and compare the time elapsed with one taken with an external clock...
Because there is nothing to address, it is actually confusing. Difference is way above usual disrepancy for Cinebench, too. So yes, either the clocks reported in the video are wrong for the run (not unlikely). Or something more sinister is at play (unlikely).The above post drew my attention, especially given the responses that followed didn't really address it adequately from my POV.
I'm comparing the R7 1800x with the R7 1800x though. The only way that result can be explained, using simple maths, is that Ryzen SMT improves as you increase the clock; i.e. SMT gets better the more you OC it.AMD's SMT is quite a lot better we have seen it on countless benchies these last weeks.
The stock 1800X would have 3.7GHz all-core turbo, so in fact the scaling would be even more if one goes with the simple calculation you made. But your point still stands. There is more to these numbers that we don't know about.New member here. Been reading the various threads for a week or so. The above post drew my attention, especially given the responses that followed didn't really address it adequately from my POV.
CB15 scores posted are multi-thread, right? With results being linear, right? I assume so, given some of the calculations that I've seen in these threads.
If new record is 2449 @ 5.14GHz, even if R7 1800X hit 1601 @ 3.6GHz, the numbers don't add up.
2449 / 1601 ~ 1.53
5.14 / 3.6 ~ 1.42
So, for 1.42x base clock there was a result of 1.53x the base result. The implication being that the 5.14Ghz cannot have been the actual clock during the record run, unless AMD's implementation of SMT sees improved SMT as clocks increase. That seems to lack logic to me.
For me, that LN2 run was clearly run well above 5.14GHz.
Thoughts?
Disclaimer: I make no claims to having any knowledge about this kind of stuff.
AMD actually met with the MAXON developers at the end of last year. One of the changes to CineBench 15.038 was a result of this meeting.”
Maxon declined to say what exactly the changes were with the new version, but the spokeswoman did say performance is comparable. Interestingly, demonstrations by AMD used a slightly older version of CineBench, which would not contain the fixes in the program.
Remember that AMD's demonstration was with stock cache / "uncore" / memory speeds - the LN2 demonstration seemed to be running at 140 BCLK which would I would assume had an overclocked L3 cache and memory (maybe DDR4-3000+ CL10) vs. DDR4-2400 CL14 or etc.So the clock needed to make that score is even higher... I posted that calculation as a minimum...
Remember that AMD's demonstration was with stock cache / "uncore" / memory speeds - the LN2 demonstration seemed to be running at 140 BCLK which would I would assume had an overclocked L3 cache and memory (maybe DDR4-3000+ CL10) vs. DDR4-2400 CL14 or etc.
OS might have been tweaked (services and background tasks removed, shutdown) as well for a slightly higher score.
I have asked in the wrong thread about this, so I will ask the same thing here.
If Ryzen 3 is 2H 2017, and Ryzen APUs are also H2, would it not be logical to have only 8 and 6 core CPUs from AMD, and as a 4C/8T setups only APUs, branded as Ryzen 3?
Not everyone would care about an iGPU, unless AMD can convince them otherwise.I have asked in the wrong thread about this, so I will ask the same thing here.
If Ryzen 3 is 2H 2017, and Ryzen APUs are also H2, would it not be logical to have only 8 and 6 core CPUs from AMD, and as a 4C/8T setups only APUs, branded as Ryzen 3?
I can't still explain why at idle is sitting at 5.1-5.2GHz. If you look at the screens, the multiplier is under 40x and the FSB is about 140.
Furthermore there is a more confusing problem with Ryzen.
Normal benchmarks, even CB, measures the time it took to perform some calculation.
How does CB measure the time? With the real time clock (RTC) into the South bridge.
Until now, the south bridge was external and probabily not invested by the LN2 and so it was at sane temperatures.
But now the SB is integrated into the CPU. Where is the quartz? What temperature it have during heavy LN2 session? Is the RTC clock reliable at -100C? Tons of questions... One should use a bench that gives time elapsed, like handbrake, and compare the time elapsed with one taken with an external clock...
We are assuming demo CB on slides was run at base clock. Can't throttle below base clock, can you?Default R7 1800X with Air Cooler will throttle down more than the LN2 at 5.14GHz.
The stepping is ZP-B1, the same as F4 stepping for qualification samples. I have no clue where F1 is from.The F1 stepping might explain some.. irregularities.
AMD may have been sandbagging in their Cinebench demo. Maybe the new world record run was using the latest version.
Per PCWorld:
Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3172...-preview-ryzen-7-outperforms-intels-best.html
Guys its easy,
Default R7 1800X with Air Cooler will throttle down more than the LN2 at 5.14GHz.
Thus we have higher scaling at 5.14GHz with LN2 vs Default with Air Cooling.
Would have been nice for them to show just how far they could go on a single core.They upped the bus. I don't know if they disabled turbo and XFR. If they didn't disabled it, this could be the explanation: during CB run, turbo and XFR sensed very low temperatures, due to LN2, and skyrocketed the clock. At idle they returned to base multiplier since it was not needed anymore that power...
If you're so sure, put some money on it then. I've got over 100k in AMD stock and options. Go load up on INTC.
So here's the really important question that seems to have been missed:
Is it pronounced 'risen' or 'rye-zen'? I defaulted to the former but Lisa Su seems to disagree and I don't want to be making a fool out of myself in public (in the imaginary world where I have friends that actually care about the cpu market anyway).
Cinebench versions were different, so you can calm down for now.They upped the bus. I don't know if they disabled turbo and XFR. If they didn't disabled it, this could be the explanation: during CB run, turbo and XFR sensed very low temperatures, due to LN2, and skyrocketed the clock. At idle they returned to base multiplier since it was not needed anymore that power...
We are assuming demo CB on slides was run at base clock. Can't throttle below base clock, can you?
.
You are right, but... Benchmarks are already starting to show 6 & 8 cores on par or even ahead of their faster 4 core counterparts.Correct me if I am wrong but here is my take on the gaming situation. YES, in most games i7-7700 will be faster and more overclockable. BUT, and this is a big BUT, all benchmarks are done with clean systems. In reality gamers do not have clean systems. What do I mean by that? Well gamers usually have their browsers open, antivirus / firewall software running, messaging apps, overclocking apps, etc. as well as obviously windows 10 running. Now I would have to assume windows 10 uses however many cores it can and all those apps/programs use a bunch of cores. So wouldn't the 1800x actually be faster in even single threaded games because you are not bogging down a 4 core cpu with all the other stuff going on that I listed?
But you are suggesting it throttles below base clock. Otherwise your input is irrelevant.As i have said before, each core doesnt always run at a constant 3.6GHz when executing the Cinebench R15 Benchmark.
You are right, but... Benchmarks are already starting to show 6 & 8 cores on par or even ahead of their faster 4 core counterparts.
But you are suggesting it throttles below base clock. Otherwise your input is irrelevant.
It is actually a QS of 1700X, most likely. So it is halfway to it's OC limit already . 7700k is a bigger red flag there.A 1700 that isn't even OC'd!? lol Get real...
Yeah, though that arises another question: what are all these QS doing in the hands of random folks?1700x is winning by a mile!