She got mad at me when I started fiddling with it again.
It’s at 3.8ghz right now without issues. Gonna leave it like that.
If the new chips are what they’re cracked up to be, and they can fit into this motherboard, I might consider it, given I only paid $149 for the CPU and mobo.
Otherwise, it’s staying until she lets me mess with it again.
I can set it to 4ghz and 1.38v in Ryzen Master, and it seems fine; but that must be manually applied every time, and the BIOS bug still won’t let me go past 15.5x on anything beyond “auto” dynamic vcore setting.
I’m referring to the leaked upcoming Intel 10-core mainstream CPU. And people have been getting better core speed letting XFR do its thing rather than overclocking their Ryzens. At least with the Zen+ chips, which have little-to-no headroom.
Umm AMD has been working on the Zen microarchitecture since at least as far back as 2012. That’s a long time ago in the computer world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOTFE7sJY-Q
And according to the article you linked, they’ve been working on some aspects of their current CPU design for over a decade.
If the 3600x exists and retails for anywhere close to its listed $229, the 1GHz performance increase would be enough to justify the purchase, let alone the increase in core count and IPC. But…
That’s why I don’t put much stock into all-core benchmarks. Even my 6/12 at 5.2 GHz rarely gets to stretch its legs. I could have gone with 6/6 and been absolutely fine. “Moar cores” doesn’t do much, performance-wise, for almost anyone, but it certainly fools some.
I did the all-core OC mainly because no matter what scenario I used my computer in, the chip would never go into single core boost, usually always 4.3ghz.
Thats why im STILL sitting on a Mid-2012 MacBook Pro (Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6/3.6 Ghz, 16GB of RAM, 480GB SSD) as my daily driver. For everything i might do (including watching multiple video streams, listening to audio, 40+ Chrome tabs, and any Office/productivity software you care to name) its still more than powerful enough and never has an issue.
The only reason im even considering replacing it with the new Mac Mini this year (probably late in the year) is to get better display output. The 650M in this thing cant do 4k (at all) or 3440x1440 above 30hz, and id like to get a 3440x1440 ultrawide for my Daily Driver here soon.
Otherwise… i wouldnt even be considering replacing it.
That’s how my 8700k performed without the all-core OC, as well. But I did the OC because I bought my chip from Silicon Lottery. I upgraded from a dud 4770k that was only stable at 4.2GHz, no matter the voltage, so I wanted a guaranteed golden chip this time around. It’s actually stable at 5.3GHz, but I don’t like the voltage that requires. Honestly, I would have kept the Haswell chip at least another couple of generations if it could have hit 4.5GHz+. Mainstream 10nm probably would have had me upgrading, but now I’m going to stay on this 8700k until it dies.
Seems like the rumors of the next generation ryzen CPUs are becoming more believable
In South Korea there’s a leaked presentation/promotion (I think?) From an AMD hired agency, inviting anyone to guess what would be the cine bench scores of a 3600x and a 3700x
If an R3 turns out to actually be unlocked 6/12 @ $99 and 6/12 w/iGPU for $129, the R3 line would pretty much dominate the entire market of gamers and standard desktop users alone.
The rest of the AMD line up is pretty much pointless to the vast majority of the user base. People already got 8/16s for no reason, but 12/24? 16/32? It’s just pointless to 99% of people.
I’m a gamer, and if these are true, there’s no way in the present I would buy any of the chips EXCEPT the $99 one with a good cooler. The rest of the line up will collect dust.
It just doesn’t make sense. The only way it makes any sense is if they lock all of them down.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the 8 core and lower chips have better latency due to only one ccx?
Salhezer, chances are they would use 2 CCX’s with 3 cores each or 4/2. I believe the ryzen 5’s are 4/2 not 3/3 due to needing to be even I believe.
I being an enthusiast would buy the highest end without a second though. I do agree that there would be little point above the 3300x for probably 80% of gamers. Can push 1080p 144Hz and stream fine. The rest would get the Ryzen 5 3600x for content creators or pushing say 1440p 144Hz and the final 1% is basically me lol…
If the chips are unlocked, and assuming all can clock relatively similarly, your aren’t going to get significantly closer to 1440p 144fps on the 16 core than you would on the 6 or 8 core in today’s games.
Which leads me to believe that the chips are either inherently locked by design or by strict binnings, which would justify people to buy the bigger better chip. And suck for overclockers.
Why not? when the then 7700k was 4 core 8 threads and then 6 cores 12 threads from a 8700k you or anyone else here didn’t say a word about disagreeing with same price. if I remember from the old forums others said it was the greatest thing yet.
There is actually
Everyone only thinks about single core performance and nothing else because WoW. They also are still stuck on that “only 4 cores is enough”
It is for WoW but you people should start to think outside of WoW. A 7600k can’t handle shadow of the tomb raider because of those 4 core 4 threads, an 8600k can but half way to 100% CPU utilization
This is one reason why I think the rumors about increase core counts is possibly true
The days of having only 4 cores to be good enough is on it’s end
AMD chips will never be locked, that’s more of an Intel exclusive
4/8 is pretty much the minimum. While 16/32 is overkill it WILL game better if its something like 2/4 @ 5Ghz vs 4/8 @ 5Ghz. If they gain the ability to boost more higher its a win/win at the same price.
What are you even saying here? This literally makes no sense. You’re not discussing anything he’s said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIKN7_m0Dco
Lolwut? How would i EVER live with that UTTERLY UNPLAYABLE 100fps average and 1% lows above 60fps? OH MY GOD THE HUMANITY!
Literally the FIRST LINK in Google.
Not even coming close to maxing out 3 cores on my 8600K w/1080Ti at 1440p. Keep in mind i keep my 1080Ti locked to 1650Mhz or below for heat reasons (really for fan noise reasons, as even if i let it boost all the way to 1900+, it stays below the temp threshold, but the fans at that temp are effing NOISY), and i still get a comfortable 120fps with 1% lows in the 90s.
So you think the rumors may be true because of some made up fantasy of yours. Got it. Sound thinking.
… yeah, no. Considering that last year almost half of PC shipments were dual core machines (mostly 2c/4th, but still plenty of just dual-core, no SMT/HT) and this year we’re still not even to 1/3 being more than 4 cores…
No.
And especially for daily driving, there’s nothing that taxes a solid 4 core CPU. Literally nothing. 99% of people are not doing video editing, high-end gaming, and streaming. Not even most gamers are doing video editing or streaming.
They sell locked CPUs right now, sonny.https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-athlon-200ge
(There is a bug on one Motherboard that lets you bclk overclock the thing, but its not supposed to overclock, and AMD is forcing them to fix it).
And motherboards that dont let you overclock.
Look im not saying that they wont ship CPUs with more cores. They very well may.
Im saying there’s no damn point to it. For 99% of users, you will see ZERO benefit to having a 12-thread machine. None. 70%+ of your CPU power will be sitting there unused.
If the R3 is a 6/12 unlocked that can hit 5Ghz… that will be more than enough for any gamer who isn’t an enthusiast, who make up an absolutely TINY portion of even the “PC Gamer” crowd.
I mean, sure. Great. I’d love a 6/12 at 5Ghz for 99$. Itll make a great Hackintosh (provided the community makes it easier to get one up and running on Ryzen/AM4). But for most people… that’s the end of it. THey would never need anything better than that for the expected life of the computer. Ever.
That’s AMD cutting its own foot off. Without a reason to buy a better SKU, people wont. That simple.
Thats why the 2500K outsold the 2600K something like 8 to 1. Because, especially at the time, it was just as good for gaming and thats all you needed.
Releasing a low-end CPU with that much pointless performance sitting there is throwing money in the dumpster and lighting it on fire after covering it in dog poo. There’s no incentive to drive consumers to their pricier (and more profitable) SKUs.
![:joy:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/joy.png?v=6" ":joy:")
