I just want the x470 motherboards to release, i'm tired of the nonsense i'm going through with my asus crosshair hero VI

After the results from the recent APU, I won't be expecting much OC progress at all.

So the IPC has increased. If the clocks can reach 4.5, this would put it on the same IPC and clocks as intel pretty much for a lower price, or am I mistaken?

Nebula:

Ryzen 2600 vs 1600: Single Core: 3,8 : 3,6 GHz = 1,055 The turbo core clock is about 5,5% higher. Scores (Single Core) 4269 : 3636 Points = 1,174 The score is about 17,4% higher. Multi Core: 3,4 : 3,2 GHz = 1,062 The base clock is about 6,25% higher. Scores (Multi Core) 20102 : 17773 Points = 1,131 The score is about 11,3% higher. if you count 17,4 - 5,5 you have about performance increase for the single core. if you count 11,3 - 6,25 you have about 5,06% performance increase. So were looking at 5-12% IPC increase and for all of us better overclockability, so with 4,2-4-4GHz we should look at about 8-15% performance increase with lower/or same wattage. And I think if they optimize it a little bit more, we could even get a little bit more performance and higher clocks, so it could be a banger.^^

Scores (Multi Core) 20102 : 17773 Points = 1,131 The score is about 13,1% higher. 🙂

Aura89:

I just want the x470 motherboards to release, i'm tired of the nonsense i'm going through with my asus crosshair hero VI

What nonsense? I have this board and its fantastic.

CPC_RedDawn:

What nonsense? I have this board and its fantastic.

No matter which bios i try, no matter what memory settings i do, i have had a constant issue with cold boot many times deciding to not boot the OS, of which i'll have to reset the PC, or shut it fully down again, and then it'll, hopefully, maybe boot up.

mikev190:

The CPU cores are Summit Ridge on the APU (Basically 1st gen ryzen). The non APU chips are the first zen+ chips.

Oh. Then I stand corrected and will be more hopeful. Thanks for the correction!

Aura89:

No matter which bios i try, no matter what memory settings i do, i have had a constant issue with cold boot many times deciding to not boot the OS, of which i'll have to reset the PC, or shut it fully down again, and then it'll, hopefully, maybe boot up.

then it is something wrong with the board or any other component , you should test and investigate to find out what is causing problem and make RMA claim

kruno:

then it is something wrong with the board or any other component , you should test and investigate to find out what is causing problem and make RMA claim

Other people have this issue as well, RMA never helps. It's a fairly common issue.

This looks like a nice little bump in performance, it just remains to be seen if the overclocking potential is ~10% better as well.

Aura89:

I just want the x470 motherboards to release, i'm tired of the nonsense i'm going through with my asus crosshair hero VI

Which bios version is being used? Supposedly the cold boot bug was put to bed since version 3008. Since then version 1501, 1502, and currently 6001 has been released and have not read any new or continuing issues regard it. Only means I have not read anything about it since. Why I am surprised it still is an issue. RAM compatibility supposedly has improved as well. For me anything since version 3008 has been a no go. Compared to my M3A32-MVP this board has been a dream. Then again that has just been my experience. Personally will be holding out till the following series is released or 3600 ram speed has been confirmed by more than a select few with a "golden" chip.

Looks good, let's see how 2700 / 2800x will perform. If 4.4 will be achievable on AIO I'd call it a Major achievement.

fl2015:

Here's what I get on my 1600 dropped down to 3.8 ghz https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/7106573, if the 2600 uses a 3.8ghz single core turbo boost then the single core performance doesn't look too impressive.

Did you also downclock your RAM to 2.6/2.9? AMD are likely only testing using un-OC'd RAM for their tests.

Clouseau:

Which bios version is being used? Supposedly the cold boot bug was put to bed since version 3008. Since then version 1501, 1502, and currently 6001 has been released and have not read any new or continuing issues regard it. Only means I have not read anything about it since. Why I am surprised it still is an issue. RAM compatibility supposedly has improved as well. For me anything since version 3008 has been a no go. Compared to my M3A32-MVP this board has been a dream. Then again that has just been my experience. Personally will be holding out till the following series is released or 3600 ram speed has been confirmed by more than a select few with a "golden" chip.

Since 3008 as in it was in 3008? Because i'm on 3008 currently.

Nebula:

So were looking at 5-13% IPC increase and for all of us better overclockability, so with 4,2-4,4GHz we should look at about 8-17% performance increase with lower/or same wattage.

Unless I'm missing something or not understanding you correctly, where are you finding evidence that these new chips will OC better? I hope you're right, but I haven't heard any evidence that they will.

Aura89:

No matter which bios i try, no matter what memory settings i do, i have had a constant issue with cold boot many times deciding to not boot the OS, of which i'll have to reset the PC, or shut it fully down again, and then it'll, hopefully, maybe boot up.

I have a Biostar board and used to have the same problem as you. When I first got the board (before the AGESA 1006 updates) my 3GHz RAM was limited to 2666MHz. After that update, I can now run my RAM at 3.2GHz. But, there are a lot of settings I have to leave un-touched or else my system becomes unbootable. The weird thing is, even if I manually set the values to their defaults, the system fails to boot. For example, if I changed the tCL from "auto" to "15" (my RAM's default), it would fail to boot. But if I leave it at auto, it will run at 15. After all the updates, the only things I can change without boot failure is the frequency, the voltage (which oddly doesn't automatically adjust to match the XMP), and the command rate. Anyway my point is Biostar is a garbage company compared to Asus, so you should be able to get your RAM at it's advertised frequencies. But maybe your situation can be fixed if you approach it the way I approached mine - keep as many of the RAM settings at default as possible, and start out only adjusting the frequency, voltage, and command rate. I hear disabling GearDown helps improve stability for people, but for me touching that setting caused boot failure, whether I set it to enabled or disabled.

Aura89:

Since 3008 as in it was in 3008? Because i'm on 3008 currently.

Yes. According to Elmor's notes on the bios version the cold boot bug was addressed. That was the reason for the longer post time for 3008. Others have had good luck with 1502. Hate that my rig keeps kicking me back to version 3008. That thread over at overclock is so long now, otherwise I would have linked Elmor's post from there.

Pinscher:

It seems to be across the net that people are calling this Zen+ as some sort of upgraded from previous Zen when even On this thread fl2015 posted near identical results from his equally clocked 1600.

You do realize fl2015 is comparing to the Intel 2600K, right? That's not the Ryzen 2600.

We basically have very little to no return from an expected "up to" 25% increase in performance (14nm+ was supposed to be "up to 15%", and the swap to 12nm LP was supposed to be an additional "up to 10%" over to of 14nm+). Clock for clock right now we have near 0% increase in performance/IPC and anyone posting gains in %'s should be able to see this for themselves.

Expected from who? I don't know anyone (of importance) who predicted a 25% increase from just a single generation. Zen+ is not known to be a major revision; that's what Zen 2 is for. Zen+ is just a die shrink with some minor tweaks. Hopefully that'll result in better OC and/or IPC. If it's any consolation, to my understanding, the 2400G and 2600G are not Zen+; they're just slightly tweaked Summit Ridge chips, which is why they yielded basically no performance improvement. They're still based on 14nm, whereas "Zen+" is supposed to be 12nm.

Pinscher:

um, did you read the same post I read.

Apparently not, because you didn't quote or link to it directly. I figured you were referring to this post: https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/amd-ryzen-2600-benchmark-spotted.419567/page-2#post-5521372

It's not a prediction. Guru3d did an article on Global Foundries processes and had tables that showed the difference in performance from 14FinFet to 14LPP, then from 14LPP to 12nmLP. these are numbers provdied by Global Foundries The sum of potential performance gain was 25%. Go google it yourself if you want to. I guess the 2% we are going to get falls into the "up to" category so they are technically not Liars.

I did Google it, and I couldn't find anything that suggested a 25% performance gain. Granted, I didn't look that hard, but 25% is a bold claim so I know I'd have remembered reading about it. Here are a couple of the Guru3D sources I looked at: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/upcoming-ryzen-2-(pinnacle-ridge)-will-get-soldered-heatspreader.html http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/amd_to_launch_12nm_ryzen_in_february.html So, what were you reading?

The reason AMD was able to go to 12nm was because little to no changes were needed beyond what has been planned for their 14nm LP refresh as the processes only differ in small optimizations.

I'm not sure that's how it works; die shrinks happen regardless of major changes.

Who's talking about 2400G and 2600G, the article is talking about 2400/2600 which are Zen+ solutions built on 12nm. You totally lost me here.

I brought them up because a lot of people think those 2 processors are "Zen+" but they're not. They're basically the same architecture under the same fabrication process, so they don't really have any IPC gains. That being said, I thought maybe you figured they represented what is to be expected of the 2600, which would be an inaccurate assessment and I wanted to clear that up.

Regardless of arch revisions, the process changes owe us more than a 0% clock for clock IPC increase. So far, from what Ican see, Zen+ is DOA.

That's making a lot of assumptions. As with any product released by any company, overhyping or underhyping will lead to unmet expectations. Let's just wait and see, rather than draw conclusions based on a couple of unofficial benchmarks and speculations.

i'd imagine the biggest gains will be from the the increased voltage/power headroom. Curious to see if the reduced cache latencies on the apus will carry over aswell, could be very interesting if they do.

mikev190:

Not necessarily an amazing Ryzen 1 can get 4.1ghz so 4.4ghz could be doable. Also this single core nonsense is becoming less important. All modern games coming out use 4 threads+ so unless you play wow or some other old game then I wouldn't bother worrying about single core. A good example is the new vermintide game uses 13-14 threads on a 8core/16thread cpu. But next you'll be telling us there's no point upgrading from an i7 2600k.

The game engine for WoW is multi-threaded....has been for around a decade. They added multi-core support during the first expansion pack.