"Some notes on DDR4 memory for new Ryzen boards. "
"Hi there
Just to help educate a little.
Ryzen is compatible with all current DDR4 memory and officially supports upto 3600MHz.
However the sweet spot is 2400-2666MHz, this speed will work with all mainboards including cheaper options.
3000MHz and above will ONLY work at such frequencies in the flagship mainboards like Asus Crosshair for example and even then the maximum stable speed we achieve with a lot of messing around was 3200MHz, which really makes 3000MHz the maximum speed we advise.
Of course you could buy 3200 or even 3600 kit now, and just run it at a lower frequency with more aggressive CAS Timings and as BIOS updates come out then you might be able to achieve higher frequency.
As such we recommend 2400-3000MHz kits for use with Ryzen, faster kits will work just fine but you might have to run them below the rated speed and just set the memory timings more aggressive. "
I have it in my head that they did the same thing with the RX series as well. AMD held their cards incredibly tight to their chest which did nothing but allow the hype train to go completely off the rails which was then met with a warm reception since it didn't meet the insane expectations some were hoping for.
I'm sure they have their reasons but regardless of what they are it's really, really, really annoying.
Last edited by Triggered Fridgekin; 2017-02-24 at 08:01 PM.
A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.
Ya i saw that, but again that is a leak. I want REVIEWS DAMMIT lol. I especially want to see JJ from asus do a video because they have legit hundreds or maybe thousands of engineering samples they have tested, and know exactly how high they overclock and how well they hold memory speeds. Guess cant do shit til 28th, heh.
The reason why they advertise it is because it's a vocal group. They can help to drive sales. It doesn't have a lot to do with the size of that market. It's all about how those people can impact their other sales. Tech sites are full of enthusiasts.
You are looking at it from an enthusiast point of view. Processors aren't just purchased on their own and even the people who buy them on their own aren't necessarily overclockers (anecdote: I have 5 PC's at my house and 2 laptops and not one is overclocked. None of the people at my office who buy PC clones and assemble them themselves overclock).
That's just the end users. What about the computer suppliers and small businesses that have an IT person on board? They will purchase a lot more custom PC's and they won't overclock at all. My office has 30 odd clone PC's, a lot of them are i7's, and none of them are overclocked. Businesses won't do that.
Both of those also don't include the bigger businesses that have deals with AMD like HP or Microsoft. those guys also won't overclock.
Actually, you are the one who is "misinformed", you know why? You don't know jack shit about how a high voltage (and therefore temp) would affect CPU life, your guess is as good as your friends guess (because either one is a pure stipulation). What your "misinformed" friend does know right know thats concrete info, is that adding a few 100 extra MHz will not provide any meaningful performance gain, now that's concrete and can be measured real time. So if the risk is there, then why do it now? Instead wait a couple of years and OC the shit out of it when you actually do need that extra squeeze of performance.
Rather large price cuts on Intel's lineup.. I'll be honest I expected something, but not cuts this big.. Things are getting interesting. Definitely refreshing to see AMD shake things up a bit, been stale for too long!
http://imgur.com/qjiyeXz
I'm not exactly sure where you got the impression that I don't know how high voltage and temps would affect the life of a CPU. I even straight out acknowledged that degradation is real so how could I not understand especially since I've been doing this since the Celeron 300A? More voltage = more heat = more electric resistance = quicker (to a point) "wear and tear"
The point I was making is that it's not nearly as much of an issue as some make it out to be especially with auto-overclocking software in spite of the fault I previously mentioned. While I agree that there is no safe increase to voltage you can offset much of the increased heat with a better cooling solution which is why K series don't even ship with stock coolers and even now have a one-time K-series replacement plan in place in case you destroy it. For such an awful practice the industry sure is doing a lot to accommodate it.
Like I said, some people see degradation as a silver bullet against overclocking regardless of reasoning or explanation. We're not talking about blindly applying 1.5v on a 6600K even with liquid cooling, we're talking 1.3v max with solid aftermarket cooling. You'll easily surpass your warranty period without worry and will likely have an entirely new system long before your processor dies from degradation. I would know, my overclocked E4400 box from 2008 is still working and I am sure many others can share similar stories.
As for "not providing meaningful performance gain" (another typical reason against overclocking, 2 for 2) he plays Warcraft a lot which is pretty much the game where you'll see tangible performance gains.
Are you sure you're not my friend?
From my understanding it's less of a price cut and more a manipulation of their prices since they're often discounted to those in the first place. Microcenter is generally the cheapest retailer too. I wouldn't know though.
Last edited by Triggered Fridgekin; 2017-02-27 at 12:51 AM.
A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.
Although the Ryzen processors are promising, I would like to see some reviews first. I think that AMD has a problem with overhyping their products before so I am going to hold off for now until the majority of the people have tested it.
I'll wait for reviews and benchmarks. As a wow player i need to know how single core performance is as wow can only use 1 core.
I had AMD's for the longest time.. no more. I happily fork out something more for a Intel now that I am grown up.
whoever thinks the 1600x will outperform the 7600k in games is smoking some dank weedz. Id rather have the 4/8 vs the 6/12 cores if they turn out to be better in games. Peace
MMO-Champion Rules and Guidelines
1600X will destroy the 7600K and will likely be at least competitive, if not faster than 7700K in games .. or at worst not far behind in games that dont use more than 8 threads
the true competitor for 1600X as the gaming king will be the 6c/12t Cannon Lake, if its true that Intel will do a mainstream hexacore .. i expect that to beat 1600X, but we will see
also dont forget 1600X isnt out right now and wont have any reviews this week, only the octacores will and those are still overkill for games (and also more expensive, more difficult to cool, less OC) .. 1600X coming out in Q2
Single Core performance puts 7600k 10% ahead of 1600x. Now depending how well the games are optimized it can't go AMD's favor unless games are optimized for 6 cores instead of 4. I don't see that happening unless for some titles like Ashes where things (in the best case scenario) would just even out.
Based on the current preorders for the 1700-1800x there is a ~17% EU tax on top of the announced USD prices. Taking that correction here are the prices that will ship out:
Ryzen 1600x announced price $259 (US) + 17% (EU) = $303 final price.
Intel i5 7600k where i live is $273 as of today.
So it comes down to preference but I'd rather get the 10% cheaper, 10% faster (I know I know let's wait for the actual results) safe bet processor.
Cinebench solo core performance:
I sincerely don't understand how people can advocate for a 3.3 - 3.7ghz boost processor to be better in games vs a 3.8 - 4.2 ghz processor. I'm all up for the competition, lowering prices and all that and I think it's a good move on AMD's end to push cheap quad core processors but let's be realistic.
In the end they will be good processors on either side and I can't believe people will notice the difference tbh I switched from AMD (FX 8350 to Intel i5 6600) because AMD's processor ran World of Warcraft like shit. I know it's not AMDs problem but that was a deciding factor for me.
For me personally there is no incentive to upgrade even if the AMD processors are 30% better in that price range. Not now at least but kudos for them and hoping they keep up the pace!
4c/4t CPUs have been insufficient for gaming since at least 2015, if not late 2014
4 threads are a joke right now if you want to max out stuff and keep a steady fps
4c/8t like 4790K or 6700K/7700K are still good
this is of course assuming you play any modern games (even 2015 titles make use of more than 4 threads) and not just WoW
- - - Updated - - -
the latest information says 1600X has a 4.0 Ghz boost, thats before XFR adds 100-150 more Mhz3.3 - 3.7ghz boost processor
R5 5600X | Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme | MSI MAG B550 Tomahawk | 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4-3600/CL16 | MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X | Corsair RM650x | Cooler Master HAF X | Logitech G400s | DREVO Excalibur 84 | Kingston HyperX Cloud II | BenQ XL2411T + LG 24MK430H-B