AMD asks mobo makers to remove OC options for 5800X3D

travm said:
as pointed out, clock speed has little to do with effective speed. thats how I5's @ 4 ghz were faster than 5ghz bulldozer cpus.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then why do some people bother with overclocking?
 
ZodaEX said:
If that's the case, then why do some people bother with overclocking?
Click to expand...
Because effective speed is the sum of clock speed, cache/mem speed, cache/bus/memory latency, and a load of other things. Improving cache speed (or size) may improve performance, and overclocking may as well. There is more than one way to improve performance.
 
ZodaEX said:
If that's the case, then why do some people bother with overclocking?
Click to expand...
Because on a specific architecture, higher clocks mean higher speed. What you cannot do is compare architecture A to architecture B on clock speed. You obviously didn't understand my comparison between i5s and bulldozer.
In this scenario, the 5800X3D may well be faster than the 5800X, despite being clocked slower. You have to understand a cpu is a tiny machine, that is more complicated than every nuclear power plant on the planet combined. There's more to consider than clock speed when taking about speed
 
Lakados said:
Why do some people put spinning rims on their lowered trucks? If you build it, somebody is going to want to tweak it, simple as that.
Click to expand...

I actually have no idea. I've never thought about why some people buy spinning rims. Maybe some chicks are into them or something like that?
 
travm said:
Because on a specific architecture, higher clocks mean higher speed. What you cannot do is compare architecture A to architecture B on clock speed. You obviously didn't understand my comparison between i5s and bulldozer.
In this scenario, the 5800X3D may well be faster than the 5800X, despite being clocked slower. You have to understand a cpu is a tiny machine, that is more complicated than every nuclear power plant on the planet combined. There's more to consider than clock speed when taking about speed
Click to expand...
The 5800X and the 5800X3D are the same exact architecture.

The mental gymnastics going on in this thread by some here is impressive, I'll give you that.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
The 5800X and the 5800X3D are the same exact architecture.

The mental gymnastics going on in this thread by some here is impressive, I'll give you that.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. Some parts are the same. The cache is not. It's significantly different. Not the same exact, it's different.
 
Yeah, while the core may be largely similar, to add cache stacked on top and utilize it well would likely require significant design changes.

This CPU may perform similarly or even much slower, but it won't be just because the clock is a couple hundred MHz lower. It'll be because they didn't take good advantage of the cache as well as they could have, and oh, it's also a couple hundred MHz slower.
 
Nobu said:
Yeah, while the core may be largely similar, to add cache stacked on top and utilize it well would likely require significant design changes.

This CPU may perform similarly or even much slower, but it won't be just because the clock is a couple hundred MHz lower. It'll be because they didn't take good advantage of the cache as well as they could have, and oh, it's also a couple hundred MHz slower.
Click to expand...
The 5800x3D has a large enough clock drop that it will absolutely have impact in the certain situations where raw clock speed is more important. This is why I don't really see this thing being the better choice over a 5900x given the availability/pricing.
 
The 5800x3d max boost is 4.5, the 5800x max boost is 4.7. The base clock is only 400mhz lower and it'll barely ever be there -- when it is, that'll just help it maintain boost on other cores more.
 
I'm not in the market for any of these chips, but it will be interesting to see if the cache has a significant effect. Historically faster cache was a huge factor in gaming performance and other latency dependant workloads.
 
travm said:
I'm not in the market for any of these chips, but it will be interesting to see if the cache has a significant effect. Historically faster cache was a huge factor in gaming performance and other latency dependant workloads.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. We're just going to have to wait and see what this design brings to the table before dismissing it because of a clock difference.
 
Nobu said:
The 5800x3d max boost is 4.5, the 5800x max boost is 4.7. The base clock is only 400mhz lower and it'll barely ever be there -- when it is, that'll just help it maintain boost on other cores more.
Click to expand...
Talking about compared to the more available and cheaper 5900x which will sustain substantially higher all-core boost speeds, not to mention 4.9ghz out of the box single core boost speed.
 
Mchart said:
Talking about compared to the more available and cheaper 5900x which will sustain substantially higher all-core boost speeds, not to mention 4.9ghz out of the box single core boost speed.
Click to expand...
Seems to be same price? Could be better, depending on actual perf and what you're using it for. We'll see.
 
I'll tell ya, if Intel came out with a chip that carried an unlocked moniker and then removed the ability to overclock at the users whim, this place would be like bum fights.
 
auntjemima said:
I'll tell ya, if Intel came out with a chip that carried an unlocked moniker and then removed the ability to overclock at the users whim, this place would be like bum fights.
Click to expand...
They're all unlocked, there is no "unlocked moniker" except the now archaic "Black Editions". These are locked for a reason, and I imagine there will be boards that allow overclocking anyway, because they typically don't care what AMD tells them...for better or worse.
 
Nobu said:
Seems to be same price? Could be better, depending on actual perf and what you're using it for. We'll see.
Click to expand...
5900x is $450, cheaper, depending if you have a MC or not. 5800x3d will likely be closer to $500 it's entire production run even though MSRP is $450 due to limited availability.
 
Mchart said:
5900x is $450, cheaper, depending if you have a MC or not. 5800x3d will likely be closer to $500 it's entire production run even though MSRP is $450 due to limited availability.
Click to expand...
It's $450 on amazon, too. afa the 5800x3d, if it ends up being worse, then the price might not be so bad. If it's similar or better in some workloads, yeah, expect $500+. 5900x might go up if 5800x3d perf is disappointing, particularly if the 6xxx series is pushed back. This is all speculation until it's out, though.
 
One of the biggest bottlenecks for an abundantly multi core CPU is simultaneously accessing the ram. With only 2 or 4 memory channels coordinating core access adds significant delays. Only one core can access a channel of ram at a time by drastically increasing the cache it allows the CPU to grab more instructions at a time and recurring functions in games can possibly fit entirely in cache. For games or processes that use recursive functions the cache increase should easily outpace the clock speed decrease. But there are lots of job types out there that the clock speed decrease will have a noticeable negative impact.

This is first and for most a gaming CPU, and if true that it out performs a 12900k in gaming stock then that’s great. OC’ing the ram and fabric will only increase it from there.
 
auntjemima said:
I'll tell ya, if Intel came out with a chip that carried an unlocked moniker and then removed the ability to overclock at the users whim, this place would be like bum fights.
Click to expand...
There is no "unlocked moniker". It doesn't exist in AMD space....
 
ZeroBarrier said:
So you are okay with AMD releasing both locked and unlocked chips under the same naming scheme. Okay; that's all you had to say. 👍
Click to expand...
AMD hasn't identified locked or unlocked chips by name in many years. The naming convention is related to performance, and as such makes perfect sense.

Now if the X signified something to do with overclocking (it doesn't and never has), then I might be upset.

In short, that's not what I said, and you keep coming back to the naming having something to do with overclocking. It does not
 
travm said:
AMD hasn't identified locked or unlocked chips by name in many years. The naming convention is related to performance, and as such makes perfect sense.

Now if the X signified something to do with overclocking (it doesn't and never has), then I might be upset.

In short, that's not what I said, and you keep coming back to the naming having something to do with overclocking. It does not
Click to expand...
Never did, but it's funny watching people defend a corporation that won't even name a chip that is locked differently from all the other chips they produce that are unlocked. Same people would have a conniption if any other company pulled this same play.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
So you are okay with AMD releasing both locked and unlocked chips under the same naming scheme. Okay; that's all you had to say. 👍
Click to expand...
I mean, you can certainly lower the multiplier, if that’s your thing. Then you can push up the FSB and let the alpha pal 8045 and the delta 6000rpm fan do their things.
 
1_rick said:
You keep saying that, but it's not. AMD's asking the motherboard makers to remove the feature from the BIOS. Don't apply any such update, and you'll be free to overclock and maybe fry it.
Click to expand...
Not really sure why anyone is comparing this to if Intel made a K chip (that is specifically marketed as being unlocked) locked.

Seems like a bad faith argument.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Never did, but it's funny watching people defend a corporation that won't even name a chip that is locked differently from all the other chips they produce that are unlocked. Same people would have a conniption if any other company pulled this same play.
Click to expand...
They did. They put 3D at the end of it. I am guessing you would prefer 3DLOCKED?
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Never did, but it's funny watching people defend a corporation that won't even name a chip that is locked differently from all the other chips they produce that are unlocked. Same people would have a conniption if any other company pulled this same play.
Click to expand...
Every single post, including this one, is making the claim that the X denotes unlocked.

Bangs head on wall, walks out.
 
I don't get the dispute over nomenclature. Who cares what they name it? What a waste of bandwidth.

I wonder what the actual effect of the 1.35V limit is going to be. I don't see any reason not to allow the use of undervolting / curve optimizer, and I don't see any reason why the chip shouldn't boost more aggressively on its own if it's cooled better. I guess we'll have to wait and see where this thing actually clocks. I don't foresee it being as fast as a 12900KS at much of anything, but I also don't think it will cost nearly as much to build around.
 
JSHamlet234 said:
I don't get the dispute over nomenclature. Who cares what they name it? What a waste of bandwidth.

I wonder what the actual effect of the 1.35V limit is going to be. I don't see any reason not to allow the use of undervolting / curve optimizer, and I don't see any reason why the chip shouldn't boost more aggressively on its own if it's cooled better. I guess we'll have to wait and see where this thing actually clocks. I don't foresee it being as fast as a 12900KS at much of anything, but I also don't think it will cost nearly as much to build around.
Click to expand...
From what I can see from the TSMC releases the silicon separation layers act as mini heat blankets, so heat builds up much faster underneath that the surface area allows for. IBM and Intel solve this by placing a conductive fluid between the layers to act as a microscopic liquid cooler between vertical layers but the AMD/TSMC solution doesn’t have that due to cost reasons.
1.35 seems to be that point on the silicon where moving past there increases heat generation greatly from that point.

AMD chips hit a bottleneck in their memory controllers in scheduling ram access, there are a good number of use cases where the wait time for a core to access memory exceeds the amount of time to transfer the data. The cache size pushes these out way to the edges as cores can pull in far more data when their times do come around. Reducing the number of trips they have to take and reducing the number of times they have to wait to access ram.
 
gtrguy said:
Yeah, come on how is anyone supposed to distinguish between 5800X and 5800X3D... those designations look completely identical!

/s ... as if that was really necessary
Click to expand...
I think the big problem is the Amazon listing which is AMD 5800… or AMD 5800…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top