The Ryzen 5 2600, with codename ZD2600BBM68AF_38/34_Y in the SANDRA database, is meant to replace 1st generation Ryzen 5 1600. It has 6 physical cores and 12 threads, and based on the codename, is clocked at 3.4GHz (base) to 3.8GHz (boost). The upcoming chip also features 16MB of L3 cache and 3MB of L2 cache, along with a 65W TDP.
Speaking of which, I wonder if AMD has tried to fix the CCX latency issues that were only partially fixed by changing the scheduler assignments in Windows and Linux.
Also, the 2600's clockspeed may not reflect the potential of the refresh. There will most probably also be a 2600X and that should be the one to look for when evaluating the clocking potential of the Ryzen 2000 series.
If it turns out to indeed be +200 Mhz, then it'll be underwhelming, that's for sure; that's 5 - 6% higher clocks for base and boost, basically half of what we were expecting, in the region of 10%+ (11 or 12% at most, probably).
I hope you don't mean the same analysis that predicted Ryzen's clocks based on those engineering samples, which weren't even close in the end. Or AMD's history of originally claiming a 40% IPC increase and delivering 52%.
You're right, memory speed barely affects this particular benchmark. I wasn't sure but IMC runs at the RAM speed, and I get about the same with 1.67GHz IMC (3333MT/s RAM). CPU stock (somehow reported the 3.7GHz boost unlike the link above) http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e2d3eadeebd8fe8cb181a7c2a79aaa8cffc2f2&l=en
So if the results are real, then it's quite an IPC boost in a single gen.
Hopefully the IPC is a lot higher boost than the clocks, because the 200MHz isn't too impressive, you can usually overclock 200MHz without even touching voltage on the Ryzen 5 1600. I've built quite a few servers for small businesses using them, and the OC is usually quite easy for a small boost.
Last I heard from the guys in marketing is that they were aiming for 4.5ghz overclocks but those are silicon lottery chips, on average we will see 4.3ghz.
Last I heard from the guys in marketing is that they were aiming for 4.5ghz overclocks but those are silicon lottery chips, on average we will see 4.3ghz.
I'm just hoping for a Ryzen 7 1700 replacement that can hit an average of 4.2Ghz. If they can deliver that, that would make a pretty big difference in gaming over my current 3.8Ghz 1700. The same clocks would be great for the 1600 equivalent, and would probably take the best "bang for your buck" back from the i5 8400.
This is a 65 watt processor, so while I'm underwhelmed by the clock bump, I'll wait and see what we end up with on the 95 watt processors before making any final judgements.
Just speculation here, but if AMD was able to get an extra 500+Mhz on the Ryzen 2 series. I would only increase the non-X parts by a couple of hundred Mhz, and increase the X parts by the full amount to give more separation between the 2.
How many people bought the 1700 over the 1700x, and 1800x, and the 1600 over the 1600x because there isn't much of a difference between them? I'm guessing a lot.
This would give people more reason to spring for the more expensive/profitable X chips.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!