Clevo + Ryzen: possible?

Please show me results from max overclocked BGA. You can run your chips up to 100C. The chips will crash long time before temp will be a major problem with highest possible overclock. Cool it down with eg. an AC unit or even out in the cold when benching.

FYI. Ryzen will come in both BGA and socket!!

Edit: I have tested Wprime 32 and 1024m with [email protected] clock speed. The results I got was higher than from any 6700hq. I expect max temp from 6700hq in those benchmarks isn't a problem in laptops intended for oc'd 6820hk.

 

Of course. It's not 'discrimination' if we're going to talk facts. There's no need for anyone to get their knickers in a knot that way

I haven't found RAM / SSDs to be soldered in most performance machines - not sure what you're inferring to here...
BGA isn't performing like their socketed counterparts. I haven't come across any Kaby Lake chips pushing 5ghz + (correct me if I'm wrong). They're vastly inferior from what I've seen.
Ryzen seems promising but it's the same story if the socketed chips perform better and allow for future upgrades or replacements.
After having AMD 7970m die twice in my Alienware m18x r2 I'm especially thankful they weren't soldered since I had the chance to replace them, then later move to Nvidia hardware.
I also had a goofy engineering CPU that I was able to swap at a later date too. I would have been SOL in two instances right there.

If we're talking about Ryzen chips and the hope we can extract more performance from them (which is a pretty common ground) , then it's a very reasonable desire to not want them soldered into the motherboard and an entirely appropriate discussion to be having.

 

Well that's a good indication of progress, not. The 3720qm in my P370EM runs all day at 4x3.8ghz and that was a tray price $378 CPU ... nearly 5 years ago.

I also cooked a cheap ES 3920XM in it a few years back when I didn't know any better, swapped it back to the original, all good

BGA CPU and GPU (or SOC) makes sense in thin stuff like phones and tablets and ultraportables where every mm matters, for the markets that care about that.

In performance systems it's planned obsolescence, and locking down a platform from having a second hand parts market - and there is a higher lifetime cost of ownership because it's lifetime is over as soon as something goes pop. It's anti consumer. Which Intel always has been... They have just found a way to screw consumers outside of the antitrust and antimonopoly laws which busted them in the past.

Unfortunately I think AMD has to follow Intel's BGA lead because the market now demands it, for reasons I can't understand

 

I wouldnt normally buy a laptop with a Desktop CPU but if Ryzen has it, and Ryzen isnt garbage, I will pinch pennies to support more options in the market.

I really wanted something like the P370EM, seemed like such an awesome machine to work on.

 

I totally agree except for the last part. AMD can also win and make bank by selling CPU's we can upgrade in our machines. Intel is greedy because they also make a ton of cash licensing features on the MB - they're well in front if we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think it's acceptable to sell BGA in the machines you described above.

 

Note that at load power consumption at stock was similar to the 6950x, around 50W higher than the 7700K. It tracks it when overclocking too up another 100W.

Another lesson in TDP not being comparable between two companies let alone two products.

 

So..... now the reviews are out and it's a bust for gaming... who's still interested?

Would any of you trade up from a skylake/kaby lake platform to one of these?

 

That really just depends on your workload, but I imagine most probably wouldnt.

Though we would still have to wait on the 4-6 core variants to see if there is increased performance from a purely gaming standpoint. Current Ryzen 8 core variants seem to have a 4.3ghz limit overclock (across 8 cores) and also cant overclock memory past 2666, which should be fixed in the near future hopefully.

Its an excellent option to have for a workhorse PC that can also game well. Though I think 4-6 core Ryzen will have more excitement from the gamer crowd.

EDIT:

There also seems to be issues in regards to SMT in gaming as well, if and when it gets fixed then we should see better performance as well

 

My memory modules are not soldered to the motherboard. Neither are my SSD(s) or HDD(s). I've never heard of upgrading or repairing a PCH chip before. Plus, none of the other stuff that is soldered generally fails. And, if it does most of those IC chips are generally dirt cheap to replace... for pennies, literally. Not many hundreds of dollars like a CPU or GPU.

It is also not about performance alone. Performance is only one part of why it's no good. However, until they release soldered junk that performs better than the same generation of socketed processors, it's not accurate at all to say it is artificial. It is 100% real in every aspect. The only thing that is artificial is the belief that BGA is not inferior.

 

LOL @ new banner

EDIT: NOT MY CONTENT but I thought I would share some thought from Reddit

Causes of poor gaming relative to CPU performance of Ryzen:

1. Windows is load-balancing across CCXes. This means that a thread is being moved around on the CPU - which is normal - so that a single core isn't used more than others. On Ryzen, that needs to happen ONLY within a CCX, otherwise you will incur a massive penalty when that thread no longer finds its data in the caches of the CCX.
   
   
2. SMT hurts single threaded performance due to shared structure. Ryzen statically partitions three structures to support SMT: Micro-op queue (dispatcher), Retirement queue, Store queue. This means that, with SMT enabled, these resources are cut, potentially, in HALF (mind you, these are just queues that impact throughput of a single thread).
   
   
3. Memory latency quirks still not worked out. Gaming can be quite sensitive to memory latency and bandwidth. These issues will be, most likely, remedied with BIOS updates.

Its basically growing pains of a completely new offering in a world where everyone tailors to Intel

 

It's potentially a challenging spot to be in. A good example of why I generally do not early adopt new technology any more. It's so easy to get burned when things don't pan out as expected. But, AMD needs as many early adopters as possible for Ryzen. Seems like they may have quite a few, so that's good.

 

Yep, spot on. It kind of reminds me of when I had my Phenom II C2 which couldnt overclock past 3.7ghz but then C3 came out and people were able to push 4.0Ghz+

To be fair though, 2 of the points can be remedied with Windows and other being a firmware issues with higher memory speeds. SMT seems to be the item that people in the know are curious to whether it can be fixed. Zen+ will surely be more exciting but its good to see the competition get back into the ring.

Its very likely that BGA type systems will continue to thrive despite the few that refuse to endorse it. AMD doing well and at some point breaking into the mobile scene again will probably do more for us than "sticking to our guns". Just my uneducated opinion on the subject.

 

As mentioned in HWZ...

I still don't see why I should stick with Intel for gaming thanks to Ryzen

Eventually, games and applications will be tuned to use more cores than before.

Also, games are more dependant on GPU, right?

So, I rather get a good Ryzen now and stick with it for say, five years and just keeping changing GPU when needed, rather than getting an Intel now and then having to change again within two or three years

(now I no money though so I can't put my money at where my mouth is unfortunately)

And also, it is unfair to make judgement based on comparing a new product v.s. a well-tuned older product alone

 

Another compelling reason might be that future chips could be compatible with motherboards for some time.

 

Of course a minor socket change every negligible refresh is important!

AMD isn't smart enough to screw customers over this way.

 

If Ryzen sucks at overclocking it won't be relevant anyhow. I haven't seen any examples of respectable overclocking yet. I hate to say it, but I am skeptical it's going to be any good or we'd already see it. All I am seeing is 4.0GHz and 4.2GHz wuss speeds.

I don't give a rat's butt about stock performance. Stock is for noobs and mainstream.

 

Its just like C2 of Phenom II, just got to wait on the C3 to get your headroom

 

I'm not sure what C2 and C3 is, but whatever it means, now isn't the time to jump on the Ryzen bandwagon if it doesn't overclock worth a damn, LOL. Hopefully, that will get fixed and it will be able to handle at least 5.0GHz stable. As long as it does poorly at overclocking, I have no use for it.

 

I wouldn't mind having a lower single core performance for double the number of cores.

 

Meh... Don't care if it doesn't overclock. Cookie-cutter computing is no fun. If everyone has basically the same experience with an army of Ryzen clones that all perform exactly the same, beating Intel is no longer important and we may as well play games on $500 consoles and do our web browsing and email on $50 Amazon Fire tablets. Hmmm... consoles... AMD. Good enough for console gamers, good enough for PC? I hope that's not what they're thinking. If it doesn't overclock well, it will never qualify as an enthusiast product.

 

Even at low 3.9 it will beat a 5GHz 7700K in cpu intensive work.

Close to 6900K




It really comes down to bios refinement (remember phoenix 980N and the EC bug?) to improve overclock, and for games to scale well beyond 4cores/8threads.

 

I think what I said must have been missed. I don't care if it is better if it sucks at overclocking. While it might be an accomplishment, I am totally not interested in having a belly-button experience along with the masses. If I can't overclock the crap out of it and get much better than normal benchmark scores for Ryzen, then it's junk and I don't want any part of it. I hope they do fix that and I hope it overclocks like a banshee on acid when it's fixed. Until then, I will be watching with keen interest in how that turns out. This is one example of why I don't play the early adoption thing. I know it's new and that's OK. I'm not wanting it until they get that sorted... if they do. I've been burned too many times by broken stuff never getting fixed, and more by AMD than NVIDIA or Intel, so I will be glad to watch for now. It looks very promising, but until it doesn't suck at overclocking it's not a viable option. Running a computer stock is like watching paint dry. Beating Intel isn't good enough. I need to be able to beat other Ryzen owners with the same CPU in order for me to want one.

 

Revisions of silicon.

Phenom II C2 overclock limit was 3.7Ghz and C3 was 4.0Ghz+

 

Ah, OK. I wondered if maybe it was a revision. I stopped paying attention to AMD CPUs when Core2 Duo was released. Thanks for the insight.

 

I think this release was more for the investors, they've been in some trouble for a while now.

Its a release that doesnt "suck", though Im not personally sure why people thought this was supposed to surpass KabyLake when all leaks and information pointed to a combination between Haswell and Sandybridge strategy and that performance should be as such. Its like the RX 480 launch all over again, people thought that the 480 was supposed to beat the 1080 when there was no inclination to that either.

Only reason I know about the C2/C3 thing is that my first computer was a Phenom II 965 C2 and couldnt overclock more than 300Mhz. lol Then C3 came out and it was happy days, though I started messing around with laptops around that time anyways so I never got to appreciate it.

 

Man AMD really did a great job here, no need to delid (and apply liquid metal, even tho the guy used a bit too much..)

 

Looks to me like Ryzen in a laptop would be best targeted at mobile workstation users (ie heavily multi-threaded rendering and such). Even the lower end 1700 model gives the 7700K a good whipping while using less power (65W TDP).

As for overclocking, it looks to me like it's a downside to the smaller manufacturing process. They're pushing the chip pretty hard out of the gate and the power consumption (and therefore temp) gets obscene over 1.4V. It basically takes off at a exponential rate.

Personally, I'm gonna stick one (probably the 1700 to keep it quiet) in my HTPC/Server once they get the IOMMU grouping sorted. ECC support is an added bonus on that front.

 

Like I said... not being able to overclock Ryzen 1800X worth a hoot is going to suck.

My P870DM3 single 1080 Notebook score beats the current best Ryzen 1800X single 1080 Desktop score in 3DMark 11. I haven't checked other benchmarks yet.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/12020716/3dm11/12029609

Even my physics score is much higher.

Ryzen loses in Vantage: http://www.3dmark.com/compare/3dmv/5592495/3dmv/5592631

Basically tied in Fire Strike using a Titan X GPU: http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/11896630/fs/11900720/fs/11399287

 

Just needs some tuning. Biggest issue I've seen is core load balancing is not up to snuff. Fix that, and then it should improve performance overall, especially with DirectX 12 titles. Some overclocking headroom would help, but it's the first iteration off the assembly line, and that will come with time. It is just optimized for the architecture and clocked properly, not just some marketing ploy binning like Intel does.

 

Ryzen from what I've read is a premature release. They didn't address the CCX issue (Which had the similar issue with some old AMD Processors with Windows, Again Windows needs a patch now.. I don't think 7/8.1 will get any now sad..hope It gets patched with BIOS) + SMT which causes huge latency Plus the RAM support impaired with BIOS issues which collectively degrade it's performance. It's a real powerful CPU but I don't think Intel is just going to sit and watch, Hope AMD fixes it soon enough else they'll have to fight uphill battle once again..

 

They just pushed some new drivers for their chipset as of 3 days ago!

https://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/am4-chipset-driver.aspx

 

Wow a Win7 driver ! but where the fk is 8.1 support Lol !!?

 

Windows 10 drivers tend to work in 8.1 too.

Also this:


Great little demostration of how Ryzen performs atm... just a little optimisation and it is ready for Clevo's WS!

 

I guess time will tell. AMD needs financial support and early adoption to keep the wheels turning, but I'm looking out for number one, LOL. Not going to even consider spending my money until I like everything I see first. Not quite where it needs to be for me to want it yet. Last time I took a leap of faith on AMD was 7970M and that ended very badly. I will admit that they are closer to beating Intel in the CPU department than they have been for about 10 years, so they're definitely making nice progress we can all be happy about. I hope they see it through to the bitter end and come out on top. If they do, then I will definitely want one. Taking the victor's crown away from Intel would be epic. Even if they don't, it's still amazing progress from where they were and not having a massive gap in performance is a very good thing for all of us. But, I won't want one for myself if it ends up playing second fiddle no matter how narrow the gap is.

Windows 7 drivers also frequently work for W8.X and W10. Sometimes the W7 drivers are better than drivers for the newer OSes.

 

in the words of veruka salt: "I WANT IT NNNNNNOOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!!"

LOL

 

Wait, does this mean that we need a new Motherboard, or it should work with ur current setups?

 

I found this bit intriguing:

seems to suggest that laptops should also be possible...

 

They would need to be quite a bit bigger due to the power consumption of the chip.

 

Good thing about amd is that sockets don't change every cpu refresh.

 

Really wish Intel sockets would not change either

 

The mobile Intel Socket is almost the same as the desktop AMD socket , it's very durable , unlike the current BGA craps or Desktop Intel Socket which will bend easily
I mean I love this one

and especially hate this one

Seriously , i broke a few mobos because of this stupid design

 

Intel could and should just lop of the crappy iGPU and add 2 more cores on the same socket if they want to immediately respond.

 

I agree. They can keep their iGPUs for their budget CPUs only.

 

Clevo + Ryzen is possible. At least it can be done easily.

But... Does AMD want this? I think they're not interested in mobile PC's. Like their lack of mobile GPU's and no mxm cards...

 

I don't know of the particulars of how one would get it into production. I'd have assumed Clevo would ask AMD for permission and they'd go from there. I don't see why AMD wouldn't want their CPU in a Clevo. I'm sure there's a lot of people who could make use of it as a workstation.

 

Sure. I would be very happy to see 1700 (non X) or 1800X in a DTR. But... Clevo also want better $ per invest. They'll sell much more Intel LGA versions than AMD ones.

 

especially since clevo don't even have the electrical connection needed for the igpu to work

 

there will be clevo New Product Event in may
http://www.clevo.com.tw/group_newsdetail.asp?id=201&lang=en

what do you think about this? laptop with amd bga cpu?

 

@sicily428

Clevo have one of these events every year:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/clevo-private-event-happening-today.789224/

It's a B2B event, not a "product launch event". I'm not saying that there won't be other chassis available later in the year, but don't read too much into the event itself.

 

thanks for your answer!