I Didn't say it was bad, i actually believe 1700 would beat 7700k in gaming when both overclocked. Although this latency issue might hamper that.
I Didn't say it was bad, i actually believe 1700 would beat 7700k in gaming when both overclocked. Although this latency issue might hamper that.>1GHz OC is not bad. Especially if it's all core. 1700 has 3GHz of base clock, even if at 65W. And lower power chips usually overclock bad due to silicon characteristics: weaker transistors.
Ok so we got a bit of clarification on the Turkish OC info. These guys are totally legit.. they are from donanimhaber.com one of the oldest review sites in Turkey. Those who followed the Bulldozer launch will remember they had info which ended up being true back then as well.
Are you sure your papers are not on Pure Power/Precision boost, however? CPC did point out that there do not seem to be any technical docs on XFR, only marketing. And looncraz version of it is extremely compelling. Plus the recap highly suggests their value is that of "Pure Precision Power Boost^TM".
That's your speculation, isn't it?
Besides, isn't Bristol Ridge die basically identical to Carrizo.
Well, you have just calmed me down.As such I would take any info from them with a huge grain of salt, since they basically belong to the same tier as WCCFTech and their ilk.
I have read that article, and it needs to be established that it does not actually state what XFR is, just what it may be. And i claim that shadow p-states and the rest of stuff actually constitute Precision boost and pure power on marketing slides.The last paper is on Bristol Ridge, not Zen, but the description of shadow p-states is almost identical to XFR (see below for a link to an article on XFR)
See, precisely, granularity is not part of XFR, it is part of Precision boost, that is stated even on slide decks themselves. XFR is most likely definition of limits, but we have no evidence there are no limits on Zen either. Just that they probably do not align with stock specification.The only difference is the granularity (25MHz on Ryzen, p-states on Bristol Ridge) and limits: no limits for Zen and max p-state for Bristol Ridge.
Actually, checking around the net landed me these results:No. There are more enhancement,
The last paper is on Bristol Ridge, not Zen, but the description of shadow p-states is almost identical to XFR (see below for a link to an article on XFR)
Shadow p-states is almost like XFR (see below). The only difference is the granularity (25MHz on Ryzen, p-states on Bristol Ridge) and limits: no limits for Zen and max p-state for Bristol Ridge.
No. There are more enhancement, see here: http://www.bitsandchips.it/52-english-news/8058-xfr-and-its-anchestors
2 waysHow can i fast evaluate stability on an oc?
Now that i have to go through 8c individual cores
What would you use for preliminary stresstest?2 ways
You can run a stress tests for hours on end.
You run preliminary Stress tests for a few minutes, and if it seems stable, then you can simply go about your daily life. If the PC crashes later, then your change your OC.
PS: Prime95 is garbage.
I use aida64. I think they have a free trial version, but I've never tried it.What would you use for preliminary stresstest?
Well, you have just calmed me down.
Well, you have just calmed me down.
I have read that article, and it needs to be established that it does not actually state what XFR is, just what it may be. And i claim that shadow p-states and the rest of stuff actually constitute Precision boost and pure power on marketing slides.
See, precisely, granularity is not part of XFR, it is part of Precision boost, that is stated even on slide decks themselves. XFR is most likely definition of limits, but we have no evidence there are no limits on Zen either. Just that they probably do not align with stock specification.
Actually, checking around the net landed me these results:
1) ACS -> Carrizo
2) AVFS -> Carrizo
3) BTC -> Carrizo
4) Reliability tracker -> Carrizo, but was only activated in Bristol Ridge
5) Digital LDO -> Well, the only mention of it i can find are from this thread in context of your posts and semiaccurate. Welp.
6) Shadow p-states -> Well, Bristol Ridge first but at this point, i would not be surprised if it was in Carrizo too, and is overall a microcode thing, since hardware required to do what it does is all present in Carrizo.
7) STAPM -> present in Carrizo too.
That, and basically a twin look of Bristol Ridge/Carrizo dies kind of reaffirms my belief.
that stuff could already be available on carrizo die, but just disabled for various reasons.
Nah, i was worrying for a second i would lose the overclocking bet, nothing more.Sorry about the buzzkill, but hey Ryzen still looks nice either way.
Die looks exact same either way (well, color scheme is different). If changes were there, they were on microcode level.I posted an extract of the paper: on Bristol Ridge AVFS was enhanced. And other stuff is changet too...
If you check Z270 XPOWER manual, you will see that it goes to 5Ghz for 6700k and 5.2Ghz for 7700k. If anything, it suggests that only 2% to 7% of 1800Xs will get to 4.4Ghz.So it seems that at least MSI is confident that 1800X can indeed clock to 4.4Ghz
If you check Z270 XPOWER manual, you will see that it goes to 5Ghz for 6700k and 5.2Ghz for 7700k. If anything, it suggests that only 2% to 7% of 1800Xs will get to 4.4Ghz.
Actually on Broadwell-E this knob goes to 4.8Ghz for 6850k. Way beyond reasonable-land.I was expecting less OC than Broadwell-e, so this is a good result.
You can still hope that XFR saves the day.Why you gonna go and crush my hope and dreams?
Sorry about th
donanimhaber.com legit? Is this opposite day?
These are the guys who claimed that Bulldozer would be about 50% faster than Nehalem (and thus faster than Sandy Bridge). They also posted fake benchmarks of Bulldozer from OBR, claiming that they got them from AMD.
donanimhaber are notoriously unreliable, and if they managed to get anything right about Bulldozer it would have been down to pure luck, and the fact that they claimed so many different things that they were bound to get something right.
As such I would take any info from them with a huge grain of salt, since they basically belong to the same tier as WCCFTech and their ilk.
e buzzkill, but hey Ryzen still looks nice either way.
Besides, Donaminhaber's claims were completely useless either way, they basically said
"we overclocked an 1800X (we're not going to tell you by how much), we then tested it in a benchmark (we're not going to tell you which one), and it beat a stock 7700K (we're not going to tell you by how much)". It's classic clickbait that maintains plausible deniability, since ultimately they didn't tell us anything useful whatsoever.
I dare claim you are a little bias.I am a member of donanimhaber forums
Maybe you do not want to believe but they are totally not lying.
They did not lie, because they did not tell anything if we are sticking to facts."we overclocked an 1800X (we're not going to tell you by how much), we then tested it in a benchmark (we're not going to tell you which one), and it beat a stock 7700K (we're not going to tell you by how much)"
Not sure if anyone posted it, but here is the manual of MSI X370 motherboard
Second page is of the most interest (and nice Spinal Tap reference):
So it seems that at least MSI is confident that 1800X can indeed clock to 4.4Ghz
I dare claim you are a little bias.
They did not lie, because they did not tell anything if we are sticking to facts.
stage 6 should be achievable on watercooling.well if this is true best stage for 1800X is stage 6