i'm still confused about the overclocking on these things

>>59185593
All are unlocked and overclockable. X models will overclock themselves a little.

>>59185593
>are all the ryzen CPU's unlocked and overclockable?
Yes.
>or just the X models?
The models have a function AMD is calling "eXtended Frequency Range" (XFR) which is supposed to respond directly to the thermal performance of the cooling solution, in theory automatically allowing for higher clockspeeds provided the chip is kept cool enough.

We'll have to wait and see how it works exactly but I think it's safe to say that the X branded chips are the better samples and should allow for higher clocks.

>>59185640
sooooooo what's the point of giving us the 1800x for 2x the price and just a 0.6 ghz overclock when we can do it ourselves? i know i know retards that doesn't know how, but why..

>>59185661
price brackets are must
basic marketing

I'm not expecting much of overclocking out of the octacores.

They got them to 5.2 on liquid nitrogen, and that's still a record for 8 core cpus.

If you want higher clocked cores you'll have to wait for the 6c/12t and the quad cores.

>>59185678
thanks anon, i'm shit at marketing.

>>59185687
all i want is to buy the 1700 and get maybe 4ghz out of it? no turbo.
got dual 280 mm radiators and a loop.

>any idea if need to delid? or do we figure that out tomorrow?

>>59185709
4 ghz might be possible

>>59185687
If you really want to, you can disable cores 2 at a time in the BIOS.

>>59185709
It's all speculation right now. No guarantees that 1700 is going to be a great overclocker though. It has a 3.0 GHz BASE clock for a reason dude. These are possibly (note I said possibly) the dud chips of the 8c/16t group that are not really meant for people interested in high clock speeds, but rather a 65W multithreaded beast.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if the 6c/12t and 4c/8t chips end up hitting much higher clocks than any of these 8 core parts right out of the box.

>>59185709
>1700
I feel nostalgia. Athlon XP nostalgia

>>59185758
yeah i'm thinking the 1700's might be bad silicon aswell.

>>59185593
All Ryzen CPUs are unlocked, overclocking is controlled by the mobo chipset. Only the super low end boards restrict overclocking.

>>59185640
>X models will overclock themselves a little.
Incorrect.
ALL CPUs have XFR overhead, "X" SKUs have twice the XFR overhead.
XFR is tiny 25mhz-100mhz! temporary boosts over the top boost state.
XFR is only enabled on X370 boards.

>>59185661
The 1800X is a halo SKU to top off the product line.
Slightly higher base and boost clocks.

>>59185593

We have been testing the 1700x today, took 3 hours to get it through to windows as the supported ram list for the motherboard was wrong. The only benchmark I can remember is 3d mark cloud gate 42650 ish with a 1070.

We were still struggling to get it to 4.1ghz with the stock cooler by the end of the day.

I'm off work for the next 2 days but I'll.try get cpuz benchmarks from my manager in comparison to a 7700k with 1070 oc to 5ghz

>muh binning
>muh TDP
said the teenager who doesn't know what he's talking about

clarification:
- TDP is a number used for thermal design you doofuses
- we don't know anything about binning whatsoever until the product actually launches; everything until then is speculation

teenagers pls go

>>59185923
4.1ghz with the stock cooler ain't that bad. I was expecting 4.3ghz with something like a 212 Evo and 4.5ghz with water.

>>59185661
>sooooooo what's the point of giving us the 1800x for 2x the price and just a 0.6 ghz overclock when we can do it ourselves? i know i know retards that doesn't know how, but why..
Chip/bin quality, pretty sure.

>>59185983
>TDP is a number used for thermal design you doofuses
Did anyone say anything differently?

>we don't know anything about binning whatsoever until the product actually launches; everything until then is speculation
You can make some pretty safe inferences based on what AMD has told us already.

>>59186295
>Did anyone say anything differently?
it's a common meme unfortunately
>You can make some pretty safe inferences based on what AMD has told us already.
>pretty safe
nope

>>59186332
>it's a common meme unfortunately
Yeah no shit, but in this thread? Who are you even talking to about TDP?

>nope
>1700 SKUs will probably not achieve a clockspeed as high as the 1800X SKUs.
That's pretty much the only thing anyone is saying. That's safe as fuck. They're telegraphing it isn't a great overclocker with the lack of XFR branding and a 3.0 GHz base clock. They might as well call the 1700 "Ryzen - Xeon Edition".

File: that word.jpg (45KB, 500x420px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x420px

>>59186397
>Yeah no shit, but in this thread? Who are you even talking to about TDP?
inb4
>>59186397
>That's pretty much the only thing anyone is saying
Wrong, the little goofballs here are carrying on at length about muh binning even though they clearly don't understand the full meaning of that word in this context

>>59185593
>>are all the ryzen CPU's unlocked and overclockable?
Yes

>>59185687
They got it to 5.4Ghz, broke the CB record and stoped there and didn't try to push it any further

>>59186557
To be fair it was using 1.8 watts, that sort of number is scary as all fuck

>>59185816
>XFR is only enabled on X370 boards.
citation needed

>>59186599
Volts. And we can't really tell what the cores themselves were seing as cpuz only reports atm what the mobo is pushing to the CPU, not what the per core voltage control had adjusted the voltages down to.

>15 active shit posters
>all of the jewtel shills
>literlaly arguing about which shill is right
>.5 has been deposited to your "First Israel National Bank"