View Full Version : [News] AMD Ryzen XFR Frequencies Revealed
https://www.techpowerup.com/230609/amd-ryzen-xfr-frequencies-revealed
AMD's upcoming Ryzen processors are "unlocked," in that they feature unlocked base-clock multipliers that let you easily overclock them; yet a few of its variants feature a brand extension "X." As our older article details, the "X" refers to availability of the XFR (extended frequency range) feature. Think of it as a second stage boost that rewards good CPU cooling with higher CPU clocks set automatically. The Ryzen R7-1800X, R7-1700X, R5-1600X, R5-1400X, and R3-1200X feature this.
The R7-1800X features clock speeds of 3.60 GHz, with TurboCore frequencies of 4.00 GHz and XFR ranging beyond 4.00 GHz. That of the R7-1700X is set beyond 3.80 GHz, and the R7-1600X beyond 3.70 GHz, R5-1400X beyond 3.90 GHz, and the R3-1200X beyond 3.80 GHz. There are no fixed values as to how much higher these frequencies will go, probably because AMD doesn't want to advertise clock speed figures consumers hold it to account for. The TurboCore frequencies, on the other hand, are achievable on even the included stock cooling solutions, or coolers that meet the TDP ratings of these chips.
https://www.techpowerup.com/img/17-02-13/3b9bd036022b.jpg
vario
02-13-2017, 05:00 AM
https://www.techpowerup.com/230609/amd-ryzen-xfr-frequencies-revealed
https://www.techpowerup.com/img/17-02-13/3b9bd036022b.jpg
Wont that pose a difficulty during reviews ? I mean its nice autooc feature if it works, but it kinda blurries the performance segmentation.
So 1700X is cooled nicely and it then has teh same results as 1800X ? :)
BenchZowner
02-13-2017, 05:28 AM
I don't think so Vario.
It seems like AMD will be "cherrypicking" chips for the 1800X model.
99% of the 1800X will most likely outclock the 1700X on air/water.
I will look with interest to these performences..would like to see how high a 1800X can be overclocked with a AIO cooler Corsair H110i GTX for example!
And run some Chess benchmarks on it with 8c/16t and compare it with my i7 5960x @4.5Ghz..
qcmadness
02-13-2017, 05:36 AM
My favourite will be R7-1700 for ITX build.
so my 6900k is now worth 499.. :(
vario
02-13-2017, 05:51 AM
I don't think so Vario.
It seems like AMD will be "cherrypicking" chips for the 1800X model.
99% of the 1800X will most likely outclock the 1700X on air/water.
I understand, but even with it, there will be much higher demand for 1700X, so its pretty much a given that some good ones comparable with 1800X will get to 1700X.
In that case they should fly to the same ceiling.Unless of course , AMD will intentionally set bad values to XFR requesting higher than needed voltage for example.Yea that would work to "differentiate".
Also, we dont know how much this thing can actually boost, there may be ceilings set different for every model.No ceilings at all would be interesting :).
vario
02-13-2017, 05:53 AM
so my 6900k is now worth 499.. :(
<dark jedi voice> It was always worth 499$ ...</dark jedi voice>
;-)
In reality you have a 4 channel platform with BIG AVX2 advantage, so not really anyhow :).
But they were overpriced.
so my 6900k is now worth 499.. :(
Depends on whether you utilize AVX2 or not. Most leaks seem to indicate the 1800X is actually faster in SSE computation, but quite a bit slower in AVX.
Particle
02-13-2017, 01:50 PM
so my 6900k is now worth 499.. :(
I understand this sentiment, but at the same time "time moves forward, old stuff becomes worth much less" is neither a new nor unfamiliar refrain for our chosen industries/hobbies.
FlanK3r
02-13-2017, 11:54 PM
so my 6900k is now worth 499.. :(
Dont be sad. Ryzen are not focused directly against 8c/16t of Intel chips....Only bad webs as WCCFTECH doing well overhype :-/ (and have very good traffic)
Dont be sad. Ryzen are not focused directly against 8c/16t of Intel chips....Only bad webs as WCCFTECH doing well overhype :-/ (and have very good traffic)
I have to disagree there. The entry Ryzen chips don't have the clockspeed to compete with the 7700k in gaming. These are aimed at being a high-margin homerun against Intel's flagship chips. Their real gun hasn't even been shown yet, and that's the 32 core Naples chips headed towards servers (though I would assume they are going to beef up the AVX compute before that launch).
It's possible we'll see a high clocked (i.e. min 4.2 GHz base) 4 core in the future though.
qcmadness
02-14-2017, 06:45 AM
I have to disagree there. The entry Ryzen chips don't have the clockspeed to compete with the 7700k in gaming. These are aimed at being a high-margin homerun against Intel's flagship chips. Their real gun hasn't even been shown yet, and that's the 32 core Naples chips headed towards servers (though I would assume they are going to beef up the AVX compute before that launch).
It's possible we'll see a high clocked (i.e. min 4.2 GHz base) 4 core in the future though.
I disagree with that.
I don't think AMD can push Ryzen to 4GHz+ easily, even with only 4 cores out of 8 enabled.
And for the architecture, it clearly optimizes for SSE (128-bit SIMD) but not AVX (256-bit SIMD) which makes sense as AMD wants Zen to go server.
I disagree with that.
I don't think AMD can push Ryzen to 4GHz+ easily, even with only 4 cores out of 8 enabled.
And for the architecture, it clearly optimizes for SSE (128-bit SIMD) but not AVX (256-bit SIMD) which makes sense as AMD wants Zen to go server.
Isn't that what I said????
I thought I made it very clear that clockspeed is an issue, and that AMD is competing in high threaded applications...