Friendly reminder the 1700 is not the CPU to get if you care

File: IMG_20170331_232814-01.jpg (1MB, 2236x2083px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2236x2083px

why would you overclock any 8core processor?

you wouldn't over clock a 6900k or a Xeon would you?

why did the graph leave out the 6900k anyways?

File: 1490633251804.png (49KB, 849x621px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 849x621px

>>59688814
>lying to people
Intel strikes again

File: 1490715798902.png (21KB, 900x350px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 900x350px

>>59688868
Before some fag comes along to say
>hurdur the 1700
Im talking about the 1800x
149 compared to 167..... I wonder why OP would go out of it's way to paint the 1800x in the worst light possible.

>>59688868
>>59688911

>lying

Retard

>https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/42250-amd-ryzen-7-1700-im-test-der-interessanteste-ryzen-7-prozessor.html

Now give me the source of your charts.

I hope it is a renowned site and not some shitty Youtuber.

>>59688868
>>59688911

>https://www.computerbase.de/thema/prozessor/rangliste/#diagramm-leistungsaufnahme

Roughly the same here, the 1800X at full load draws about 160W.

Now fuck off

Of course there are some golden samples which run at lower voltage than the standard.

>>59688957
>>59688988
>he trusts the germans, literally cucked by jews
>while simultaneously ignoring the housefire that is kabylake, a processor known for being delidded
Here, Hope you can read Russian
https://www.overclockers.ru/lab/81859_2/processory-itogi-2016-goda.html

>>59689010
Ok dude, so you trust the Russians more than Germans, who have the reputation for being autisticically pedantic.

Whatever

Doesn't change the fact that the 1700 =! 1800X which is said to be by too many retards on the internet.

The 1800X and 1700X are selected CPUs and the CPUs that didn't met the requirements end up being sold as the 1700.

Too many retards claim that there is no difference.

File: FT7q8WQ.jpg (32KB, 450x401px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 450x401px

>>59689100
>Too many retards claim that there is no difference.
I won't disagree with you there.

File: 1700 oc vs 1800x oc.png (111KB, 806x615px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 806x615px

>>59688814
>implying that 1.45v is necessary for 4ghz
>implying it doesn't take the same for the 1800x to reach 4ghz
>implying all cores at 4ghz isn't faster than the stock 1800x
>implying 30w more than 1800x makes even a dent in power bills
Assuming the 1700 was under full load for 8 hours a day (>implying anyone renders for 8 hours straight) the total additional power cost at the end of a working week would be:

300W = 0.03KW
Typical electricity unit price = $0.12 per KW/hr

0.03KW x 0.12 x 8 hours x 5 days = $1.44 per week

So it would take roughly 2.3 years of ridiculously heavy usage for the 1700 to reach the price of the 1800x, and that's while the overclocked 1700 is performing significantly better than the stock 1800x.
>implying that chart is even remotely reliable
>imblygin you havend been blowd da fug oudd

>>59689131
You are fucking making too many assumptions.

I have posted a chart and a link to a full review, while you post a chart of 1 benchmark, and who would have thought, it is Cinebench...

I haven't denied that the 1700@4Ghz isn't faster than the 1800X.

>Typical electricity unit price = $0.12 per KW/hr

Typical ignorant comment by AMD followers.

€0.3 per KW/hr here in Germany

And what you forget is the cooling of the overclocked 1700.
You somehow need to dissipate the massive heat resulting from 200W+ power consumption, which is only possible with a top notch liquid cooling.

It adds up.

File: Screenshot_20170401-130900(1).jpg (190KB, 720x660px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 720x660px

>>59689131
this

Also it's pathetic that the i7-5960X uses ~250 watts at 4GHz but OP conveniently forgot to mention that.

>>59688814
If you're so worried about power usage just clock it 100MHz lower. You'll take a small hit in performance for a large gain in efficiency.
>You can reach Intel performance with OC, but Intel is still the way more efficient CPU.still the way more efficient CPU.
Ryzen shits all over Inte's efficiency. Your Cinebench chart shows absolute energy consumption during multithreading, ignoring that at that energy consumption level the octacore Ryzen demolishes Intel's quad cores in terms of performance.

>>59689100
>he thinks amd ever bins anything

just look at the past:

>8320 = 8350 with lower clocks but overclocks the same
>r9 270 = r9 270x with lower clocks but overclocks the same
>hd 6950 = hd 6970 with lower clocks and bios-disabled shaders which can be re-enabled with a bios flash and overclocked to the same potential as the 6970

AMD don't bin their chips. they simply set different frequency tiers for each product. Occasionally (rarely) a product doesn't meet the frequency tier of the higher end model so it is turned into a lower end product but these make up 1% of the 1700 chips. The rest are just 1800x chips with lower clockspeeds in order to have enough stock to sell.

>>59689198
>germany
lol

Also the stock cooler is usually enough for the 1700 @ 4GHz.

>>59688814
>Friendly reminder the 1700 is not the CPU to get if you care for electricity usage
nice try amd.

>>59689198
>overclock 1700 beyond the levels of an 1800x means it uses more power than the 1800x
Wow!! That's so unheard of!!!! How is this even possible?!11!

Have you considered that if you overclocked it to 3.7ghz it wouldn't use 200w? probably would use the same as the 1800x at 3.7ghz.
Really makes ya think.

>>59689231
Nobody cares about those shit CPUs.

I only care for CPUs that are sold for max. 350$/€ and compare CPUs that are in the same price range.

>>59689242
>X did something in the past, which means X will do that again now and in the future

Nice logic

It's only reasonable for me to claim that 1800X and the 1700X must meet the requirements (certain clockfrequencies set at certain voltages) to be sold as such.

Of course it's gonna be tested before it lands into the packaging.

Again, look at any review out there.

To get the 1700 at the clocking of a 1800X, you need a higher voltage set compared to the 1800X.

>>59689307
>Nobody cares about those shit CPUs.
exactly which is why intel is a shit investment

>I only care for CPUs that are sold for max. 350$/€ and compare CPUs that are in the same price range.
Yeah and the R7 1700 is what you're looking for.

You can easily achieve ~100 watt power consumption at 3.8 GHz which is only a 5% performance loss from 4GHz.

see >>59688868

>>59688814
LEISTUNGSAUFNAHME

haha fuck off nazi ass motherfucker

File: power consumption.png (581KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 600x600px

>>59689307
They literally use the same power when overclocked. the 1800x managed an extra 100mhz and used the same amount of watts.
>$170 for 100mhz
if 0.5% performance is worth $170 to you then clearly money is not object. Go buy a 6950x instead or maybe a 22 core xeon. They offer more additional performance over the 1800x than the 4.1ghz 1800x has over a 4ghz 1700. so if it's worth it to you to get the 1800x then it must be worth it to get the 6950x as well.

>>59689198
>massive heat
any decent air cooler can handle that
even the stock cooler is good up to 3.8ghz

>>59689131
How does does the 7700K beat the 6900k in in single thread performance?

>>59689705
8% better IPC since it's kaby-lake vs broadwell,
also significantly higher clockpeed.

File: n7fhFAf.jpg (38KB, 426x481px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 426x481px

>>59689650
You are like little baby, watch this.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-3dmark-multithreaded-benchmarks-leaked/

>>59689198
> 50w increase of power consumption oc-d compared to other CPU-s
> recalculates electric bill
> Could save 20 cents per week
I hate these muh electric bill posters, you don't save shit.

>>59689198
>which is only possible with a top notch liquid cooling.
are you actually retarded?
Air coolers can do 300W easy. Just because your shit intel delidlake needs you to pump vastly higher amounts of heat out of the lid doesn't mean all chips are the same.

>>59689788
>still referencing leaks a month after release

File: 1700.png (986KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 1920x1080px

>>59688814
>To reach 4Ghz all cores, you have to up the voltage above 1.45V

Nope.

>>59689198
What are you comparing the power consumption to?
Compared to a stock 1800x it's 65w more at full load. Assuming you keep it at full load that's 3.51€ with your shitty power price. But I doubt you'd render or export video that much every day.

>You somehow need to dissipate the massive heat resulting from 200W+ power consumption, which is only possible with a top notch liquid cooling.
You don't know what you're talking about. A beefy air cooler or any AIO liquid cooler is fine.

>>59688814
Nice try intel merchant, you can fuck off now

>>59691070
>bumping a dead thread an hour later

Hey OP. Not got enough (You)s yet? Here's one on the house, buddy. Enjoy!

>>59691089
im not op you stupid newfag

File: 1490633020381.png (1MB, 1110x5110px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1110x5110px

>>59688814
Just buy the 7700K am I right go- I mean guys.

>>59689989
>1.550V

File: laughing suicide bombers.jpg (31KB, 628x314px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 628x314px

>>59691545
>he thinks VID is Vcore

>>59691545
Average is 1.2 mong, but im pretty sure intel shills don't care about those things

File: 1455559582359.png (178KB, 303x311px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 303x311px

>>59691545
lmao, and I thought I was stupid

>>59691638
It doesn't mean anything anyway. VID is the voltage that the CPU is requesting, not what's actually being delivered. It's always much higher than the actual vcore on both AMD and Intel chips when overclocked. The actual vcore of 1.356V is at the bottom of the page.