AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Desktop Processor Spotted on ASUS Crosshair VII HERO Mobo

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jan 18, 2018.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    32,157
    Likes Received:
    1,408
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    Silva likes this.
  2. xIcarus

    xIcarus Master Guru

    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    68
    GPU:
    1080 Ti AORUS
  3. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,785
    Likes Received:
    273
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Keep in mind, a lot of the memory bandwidth is now divided for the IGP too, so who knows if Ryzen 2 cores are actually slightly faster than 15%. Regardless, I'd say a roughly ~10% IPC improvement is acceptable for something where we knew there were no major architectural changes. The Ryzen 2000 series is likely just a series of bugfixes from the first generation (some of the first models produced had some pretty serious hardware bugs) and a few micro-optimizations here and there. As I've mentioned in other posts, if the Ryzen 2000 series is better at overclocking, that's what will really keep people's interest.
     
  4. easytomy

    easytomy Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    8
    GPU:
    AMD
    Just 6% ??? C'mon AMD... daf*k is this?
    Dear God... I've waited a billion years for the Ryzen refresh, I still have to wait... and it's just 6%.
    :(
    At least the X470 platform I hope will be better for PCI-e & Memory... I hope!
     

  5. warlord

    warlord Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    152
    GPU:
    R9 390X MSI(Gaming)
    I5 8500 seems faster and a better option already. I expected better performance from Zen's optimized refresh line-up tbh.
     
  6. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,785
    Likes Received:
    273
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    It's a 6% clock speed increase... What difference does that make if you're getting an X series motherboard?
     
    Silva likes this.
  7. Sempaii

    Sempaii Member Guru

    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    MSI GTX970 G 4GB
    keep in mind, the chip could still be an engineering sample. ;-)
     
    Silva likes this.
  8. easytomy

    easytomy Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    8
    GPU:
    AMD
    I know it's clock speed. I was expecting at least a 10% increase. C'mon... you're reducing the fab-process, and you're updating known / initial release issues... I was expecting a 2800X to reach 4.5+ GHz. At 4.24 GHz it seems a no-upgrade kind of difference, cause IPC will be an insignificant factor.
     
  9. Jagman

    Jagman Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,044
    Likes Received:
    55
    GPU:
    8GB RX480 Red Devil
    So this would make the 2600X 3.8GHz, 4.2GHz turbo (4.3GHz with XFR?), hypothetically at least. If it overclocks better could we see 4.4/4.5GHz? A 10 - 15% performance improvement from a 6% clock speed increase isn't to shabby these days anyway.
     
    Silva likes this.
  10. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,785
    Likes Received:
    273
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I still don't see what there is to complain about. Clock speed is irrelevant on an unlocked CPU, especially if there's an IPC improvement. It's also the non-X version.
     
    juvat likes this.

  11. easytomy

    easytomy Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    8
    GPU:
    AMD
    Could be... but so close to release, I'm guessing they already have plenty of wafers cooked. It's unlikely they'll tweak something in the last few months before launch...
     
  12. easytomy

    easytomy Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    8
    GPU:
    AMD
    Yeah... we'll see. I was stating that clock has everything to do with it, while IPC will be an insignificant increase.
    We're debating over things too far from our grasp. I'm still hoping for better clock speeds at the high end. :p
     
  13. Embra

    Embra Master Guru

    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    38
    GPU:
    Sapphire Nitro Fury
    AMD is also looking for more power efficiency, can't have dramatic improvements in both without major changes. This looks good. Interested in power use too.
     
    Silva likes this.
  14. FrostNixon

    FrostNixon Member Guru

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    GT 555M 1GB
    I have no idea why people are looking at "BASE CLOCK INCREASE PERCENTAGE". Useless numbers. Amd are doing the same as Intel - increasing base clock by 200mhz from previous generation (i5-6500 3200mhz, i5-7500 3400mhz).
    What is really important is how much it overclocks. Base speed doesn't really matter.
     
    Silva and schmidtbag like this.
  15. easytomy

    easytomy Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    8
    GPU:
    AMD
    It's because not all people overclock their CPU. :)
    I often like to leave things the way they were intended to be used, just because it gives me a 'stock/guarantee' kind of reassurance. Weird, huh?
     
    juvat likes this.

  16. cryohellinc

    cryohellinc Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,299
    Likes Received:
    326
    GPU:
    1080Ti SeaHawkX@2k+PG348Q
    Assumption, but most likely they will Clock much better, hence 4,5ghz under OC potentially can be reached. Time will tell!
     
  17. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,785
    Likes Received:
    273
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Why does clock speed have everything (or anything) to do with it? I legitimately don't understand why that matters since you're just going to override it anyway. Not only is the IPC increase objectively more important than factory clocks, but it seems to offer a greater performance improvement than the increase in clock speeds.

    Put it in this perspective:
    A 4GHz Ryzen 1600 will be slower than a 4GHz Ryzen 2600, assuming all other hardware and specs are the same. Neither CPU XFR speeds reach 4GHz out-of-the-box. If the 2600 can't clock past 4GHz (much like the 1600) then the 2600 is still a better product. At this point, what is the relevance or significance of the base clocks? Meanwhile, if the new fabrication node allows the 2600 to OC beyond to, let's say 4.5GHz, then the base clocks are 100% irrelevant (as an overclocker).

    If you don't intend to OC and you want to use the stock heatsink, you want the CPU to remain within the 65W TDP. Though the transistors were shrunk by around 15%, that doesn't mean you can increase clocks by 15% and expect the same wattage.

    So buy the 2600X... that surely will come with a higher clock speed. Problem solved.

    Also, I'm sure you could bump the frequency a few hundred MHz without tweaking anything else (not even voltage) and you'll be rock solid.

    EDIT:
    Overclocking isn't scary nowadays. Besides, if you're getting RAM above 2400MHz (which you should) you have to overclock that anyway, since by default most boards won't go beyond that.
     
    Silva likes this.
  18. easytomy

    easytomy Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    8
    GPU:
    AMD

    Wow... lots of questions, little time. Here it goes:
    1.) IPC improvement will probably be minimal - it's just a refresh - but I am really hoping to be wrong.
    2.) if the IPC increase is minimal, Ryzen 1600 and Ryzen 2600 will only be differentiated by clock speeds.
    3.) if 90% of the processors overclock way better than previous generation (say from 3.5 GHz stock - to 4.5 OC), don't you think that AMD will ship them 'stock' with more base frequency than 3.5 ? ...to have a better overall product?
    4.) Base clock is significant because 80-90% of the people DON'T overclock (OEMs play a major role here).
     
  19. easytomy

    easytomy Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    8
    GPU:
    AMD
    [QUOTE="Overclocking isn't scary nowadays. Besides, if you're getting RAM above 2400MHz (which you should) you have to overclock that anyway, since by default most boards won't go beyond that.[/QUOTE]

    Nobody here said it is. But some people like their 'cars' stock, and some like to tune and tweak them until nothing is original anymore. There's people and people.
     
  20. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,785
    Likes Received:
    273
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    What's the question? But as discussed earlier, these CPUs seem to have a roughly 15% performance improvement. So even if the IPC was negligible, what's the difference between a 15% overall improvement involving a 6% clock increase vs just a 15% clock increase? The IPC improvement is better, because that means more performance for fewer watts.
    In which case get the 1600X.
    That's a good point and one I've considered myself. But remember, this is the non-X variant; the one that's binned with supposedly worse quality silicon. If the 1600X with it's boost clocks breach 4GHz, that could be promising.
    And most people don't need the higher speed, especially when you've got 12 threads. A 3.5GHz quad core without SMT/HT is plenty fast enough for the average person. Most people who don't intend to OC, including OEMs, also don't buy enthusiast-grade motherboards designed for overclocking. Keep in mind laptops and tablets tend to be much more popular than desktops and very rarely will you see those breach 3GHz and/or 8 threads, while also being affordable or portable.
    Clocks aren't that important to most people.
    I get what you're saying, but the difference here is you can pay hundreds of dollars for a 5% improvement in a car. It takes a lot of time, and may void your warranty. If you do it wrong, you just screwed yourself out of what could be your only means of transportation. If you have a B or X series AMD motherboard, you can overclock for free and relatively worry free. Unless you do something really stupid like bump the voltage to 1.6v, worst case scenario, you just reset the CMOS. I hear the stock AMD heatsinks are suitable for minor overclocks.
     

Share This Page